S H 

VY^Ii PLANS FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH 
PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES ^ > 



From BUIvLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Volume XXVIII, 1908 



Proceedings of the Fourth International Fishery Congress 



Washington, igoS 




WASHINGTON :::::: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 



PLANS FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH 
PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES ^ ^ 

From BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Volume XXVIII, 1908 
Proceedings of the Fourth International Fishery Congress : : Washingtoji, igo8 



Pages 

I. By S. W. Downing 627-633 

II. By Frank N. Clark 635-642 

III. By Paul Reighard ....... 643-684 

Discussion 685-695 




WASHINGTON :::::: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 



1910 









^'\^ 



BUREAU OF FISHERIES DOCUMENTS NO. 672, 673, AND 674 
Issued April, 1910 



51.0 IS. 



^ 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES 

By S. W. Downing 

Superintendetit U. S. Fisheries Station, Put-in Bay, Ohio 

J* 

Paper presented before the Fourth International Fishery Congress 
held at Washington, U. S. A., September 22 to 26, 1908 



627 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



By S. W. DOWNING, 
Superintendent U. S. Fisheries Station, Put-in Bay, Ohio. 



In discussing this subject it will first be necessary that we understand 
something of the habits and the manner of reproduction of these fishes, and the 
probable increase and losses in numbers under natural conditions. Since the 
same conditions exist and the same reasoning will apply to all the lakes of the 
chain, we will confine our remarks to the conditions in Lake Erie. 

BREEDING HABITS AND NATURAL REPRODUCTIVITY OF WHITEFISH. 

The adult whitefishes are migratory, leaving the lower end of the lake and 
the deeper waters each year as the spawning season approaches and the breeding 
instinct prompts them, and seeking their natural spawning beds, which consist 
of the reefs among the islands and the rocky and sandy bottoms of the shoaler 
portions of the lake. Most of these reefs and shoals are of that peculiar forma- 
tion called honeycombed rock; that is, instead of being gravelly or smooth these 
rocks are dotted with holes and small cavities into which the eggs, as they are 
voided by the fish, may drop and be comparatively safe from being eaten by 
the suckers and other spawn-eating fishes, water lizards, or other enemies, and 
also from being covered by mud, silt, and other filth, and smothered, as they 
would be if deposited on mud bottom. 

Were the whitefish nest builders, and did they pair as some of the other 
fishes do so as to perform the function of fertilizing their eggs with any degree 
of certainty, the chances for a large production of young under such favorable 
conditions would be very good, indeed; but they are not nest builders, neither 
do they mate ; on the contrary they approach the spawning grounds singly and in 
schools, and are what is known as "school spawners," the female extruding her 
eggs wherever she may happen to be, regardless of whether there is a male fish 
within close proximity or not. In consequence but very few of the fish come 
together so as properly to perform the functions of fertilization ; and when it is 

629 



630 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHEBtlES. 

known, as was demonstrated by Mr. J. J. Stranahan by a very careful experi- 
ment in the fall of 1897, that the life of an unfertilized whitefish egg, if left in 
the water, is less than 4 minutes, while more than 50 per cent of them perish in 
I J 2 minutes, and the life germ contained in the milt of the male fish may be fairly 
supposed to live no longer tmder the same conditions, it will readily be seen 
that the percentage of eggs fertilized under natural conditions must of a neces- 
sity be very small. In fact, it is estimated by those fish culturists who have had 
most to do with the propagation of whitefish that not more than i per cent of 
the eggs are fertilized when deposited under natural conditions. At this rate 
let us see how many fertile eggs each pair of whitefish will produce each season. 

It is estimated that the average number of eggs produced annually by each 
female whitefish is 35,000. The greatest number the writer has ever known to 
be secured from one fish was 150,000, from a fish weighing 11 pounds, giving 
13,636 eggs to the poimd of fish. This would be equivalent to a little more 
than 37,000 eggs from a fish weighing 2^4 pounds, and as the average weight of 
the spawning whitefish is from 2>^ to 3 poimds it will be seen that 35,000 eggs to 
the fish should be nearly correct. Then if each pair of whitefish produce 35,000 
eggs, and but i per cent of them are fertilized, 350 fertile eggs to the pair is all 
that can be expected to commence with. As the period of incubation for 
whitefish eggs is from 128 to 150 days, and as these fertile eggs must lie on the 
lake bottom all this time, in danger of destruction by being smothered in mud 
and filth as previously shown, and exposed to the still greater danger of being 
eaten by all kinds of aquatic animals that feed at the lake bottom, it is quite 
evident that but few of these 350 fertile eggs will survive to reach the fry stage. 

It is evident, moreover, that nature never intended there should be such a 
large increase in numbers as would result from anything like a perfect fertiliza- 
tion, for in that case the lake in a short time would be so densely inhabited that 
the waters could not produce sufficient food for all ; neither would there be room 
in the lake for them if they came to maturity. It is therefore safe to suppose 
that naturally the number increases but little if it more than overbalances the 
loss, and reasoning from the known to the unknown we are sure that this is true. 

The number of young produced each year by those fishes, of which there 
is a large family, that carry their young through the period of incubation and 
produce them alive, ranges, so far as the writer has been able to learn, from 
I to 22, giving an average of 11 young to each pair of fish; and as these fishes 
are very numerous where found, it appears that this rate of increase in the fry 
state is sufficient to more than overcome the losses under natural conditions. 
Thus by analogy we have the proof that an increase of 1 1 young from each 
pair of fish of any kind, including whitefish, is more than enough to overbalance 
the natural losses. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 63 1 

WORK OF THE HATCHERIES. 

But the whitefish, on account of being such an excellent food fish, is more 
sought after than many others and is taken by every device that man has 
been able to invent and in the greatest numbers possible on all occasions, so 
that the natural losses are many times multiplied by this take of fish which 
may justly be termed "artificial" losses. If this artificial loss is continued, 
then in order that the loss shall not greatly overbalance the natural increase 
there must of necessity be introduced an artificial increase. Happily this 
can be accomplished, in fact is being accomplished, in several places by the aid 
of the hatcheries. The method employed is to have men go out with the 
commercial fishermen when they raise their nets and collect the eggs from the 
ripe fish. This is done by expelling the eggs into a common milk pan in as 
dry a state as possible, after which they are immediately fertilized by using 
the milt of the ripe male fish. They are then carefully washed, brought to the 
station and placed in the hatching jars, where they remain until hatched. 
In addition to this method of saving the eggs we also pen several thousand 
fish each year. To do this a net is hung on the back of that part of the pound 
net called the crib, and when the fish commence coming on the grounds, before 
they are ripe enough to spawn, the fishermen as they raise their nets take out 
the unripe fish and place them in these nets on the back of the crib. The 
station tug, which is provided with large tanks through which a stream of water 
is constantly pumped, visits these nets and takes the fish out, transferring them 
to the tanks and conveying them to the station, where they are then transferred 
to the pens. Here they are held until they ripen, when the eggs are secured; 
and the fish after a few days, when they have regained their normal condition, 
are returned to the fishermen from whom they were obtained and are sent 
to market. It is perhaps well to say in this connection that spawning the 
fish in this manner in no way injures them for food — in fact these fish that are 
spawned and then held a few days before being put on the market are in much 
better condition for consumption than if they had been marketed when first 
caught. Moreover, the whitefish, unlike many others, is in the best condition 
for food at spawning time, for the reason that it is very fat and the flesh is 
juicy, sweet, and, the water temperature at this time being low, firm and 
flaky, while earlier in the season when the water is yet warm the flesh is much 
softer and not of as fine a flavor. 

Not to digress further, however, we will continue by saying that from the 
fish collected and held in pens as described above, at one point alone last season 
over 47,000,000 eggs of the very best quality were secured. In other instances, 
where the fishermen operate on a small scale and small boats are used for the 
purpose, arrangements are made whereby the fisherman collects the eggs himself 



632 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

and is paid for them at so much per quart for fertile eggs. These men operate 
gill nets and fish on the reefs, and as the whitefash do not frequent the reefs 
to any extent until ready to spawn, usually more than 50 per cent of their 
catch is ripe fish. 

MEASURES NECESSARY TO INSURE INCREASED PRODUCTION. 

From a practical experience of sixteen seasons in the hatching of whitefish 
and by consultation with other fish culturists, we find that the average hatch 
of the eggs collected and taken to the hatcheries is from 75 to 80 per cent. 
Assuming the lower figure to be the correct one, if each pair of whitefish, as 
previously shown, produce 35,000 eggs, by the assistance of the hatcheries 
we get three-fourths of 35,000 or 26,331 fry as against the 11 the same fish 
would have produced if the eggs had been left to themselves, or 2,393 times 
as many as it was intended by nature for them to produce, as just now shown. 
Even allowing that the whole of the i per cent naturally fertilized hatch, giving 
350 fry as the number produced by each pair of fish, the hatchery would still 
beat nature by 25,981 fry or 750 times as many, and the fry produced in the 
hatcheries are just as strong and vigorous and their chances for reaching maturity 
are just as great as are those hatched naturally. Then, if by the lower calcula- 
tion we produce 750 times as many fry by collecting the eggs and hatching 
them at the hatcheries as the fish would produce if left to themselves, it is 
obvious that the best plan to promote the whitefish production of the Great 
Lakes is: 

To so arrange matters that artificial propagation shall be generally applied 
to reproduction by having hatcheries established at every available point 
where a sufficient number of eggs can be secured to warrant their maintenance. 
It is not necessary that the hatcheries be operated on as large a scale as those 
at Detroit and at Put-in Bay, but wherever enough eggs can be secured to give 
a hatch of from 25 to 50 millions, if these points are remote from the larger 
stations put up a hatchery and operate upon as economical a scale as possible; 
to stock these hatcheries not only collecting the eggs from the ripe fish as caught 
by the fishermen, but penning and holding the green fish until they ripen, 
piu-suing the method just described, so that practically all the fish caught will 
have contributed toward this production before being placed upon the market. 

To make this plan the more effective, so as to get the greatest increase 
possible from the fish caught, a law should be enacted compelling the fishermen 
to collect, or allow the hatcheries to collect, all the eggs from the ripe fish, 
and to place the green fish in the auxiliary nets for penning; the fishermen 
to be paid a fair price for the eggs so taken by them and for their trouble in 
penning the fish, and to receive a fair remimeration for all fish lost by penning. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 633 

As a further part of the plan we would have a law enacted prohibiting the 
taking or the offering for sale of any undersized whitefish, making the size 
limit large enough so that every fish before being placed upon the market 
would have had a chance to have spawned at least once and thereby contributed 
toward increasing the production. 

This plan should not only be universal with the states bordering upon the 
Great Lakes, but should be international, making the same conditions on 
the Canadian side as in the states and preventing any loophole through which 
the regulations could be evaded. 

This plan would be strengthened by making a closed season during the 
summer months when it is so nearly impossible to get the fish to market in an 
edible condition on account of the warm weather and the high temperature 
of the water from which they must of a necessity be taken. All the fish so taken 
are a total loss to reproduction, as they go to market with all their unripe eggs 
still in the ovaries, and for every female whitefish taken at this period there 
is a loss to reproduction of 1 1 to 350 fry if left to spawn naturally, or of approx- 
imately 26,000 if the eggs were allowed to ripen and hatch at a hatchery. 

If this plan is adopted, the writer will cheerfully stake his reputation as 
a fish culturist that at the end of ten years it will have been proved the best 
offered up to date. 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES 

By Frank N. Clark 
Superintendent U. S. Fisheries Station, Northville, Mich. 



Paper presented before the Fourth International Fishery Congress 
held at Washington. U. S. A., September 22 to 26. 1908 



635 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



By FRANK N. CLARK. 
Superintendent United Slates Fisheries Station, Norlhville, Mich. 



In preparing the following discussion I considered it desirable to eliminate 
as far as possible the complicated and tiresome statistical details which, in 
almost every paper of this nature, go to make up a great portion of its subject- 
matter. I believe that the interest of those who may be called upon later on to 
devise some effective means of increasing the supply of this greatest of all Amer- 
ican food fishes will be more easily aroused by demonstrating a simple and 
practicable solution of .the problem. Some figures are necessary, of coiu'se, 
but in most instances I have made bold assertions of facts which I know to be 
true, and which I am going to take the liberty of asking my audience to accept 
for the truth. 

CONDITIONS OF THE FISHERY AND THEIR CAUSES. 

It is a universally conceded fact that in an early day when the forests of 
the states and provinces bordering upon the Great Lakes were for the most 
part still in their primitive splendor, when the rivers and streams emptying into 
these waters ran clear as crystal and when civilized man had not yet turned so 
extensively to the waters for his livelihood, whitefish were in very great abun- 
dance and were distributed in a wide range throughout the entire water system 
known as the Great Lakes. Even as late as from 1864 to 1870, as may be noted 
by reference to Mr. J. W. Milner's report in the Bulletin of the L-nited States 
Fish Commission for the year 1872, whitefish were present in such large numbers 
that during a single season it was not unusual for a fishing ground to yield from 
200 to 700 half barrels for each pound net in operation. In a long and very 
interesting conversation which I had a few years ago with a Mr. Woodward, 
who was then a very old man, I learned that sometime during the early fifties, 
while he was acting as a government surveyor and maintaining a camp at the 
mouth of the Thunder Bay River, his party caught more whitefish than it could 
use and took them all from the river itself. At the present time no whitefish 

637 



638 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

are caught within 9 miles of the river's mouth. In 1867 and 1868 my father, 
the late N. W. Clark, who was one of the pioneer fish culturists of America, took 
whitefish spawn on the Detroit River, and his observations made at that time 
indicate that the species was very abundant. At Grassy Island and Mama 
Juda, two of the best-known fishing grounds, i ,000 fish at a haul was no unusual 
occurrence. At the present time a haul of 30 fish is considered large. The 
same is true also of the Au Sable region upon Lake Huron, where during the 
sixties from 40 to 50 boats were doing a very lucrative business and at the 
present time not more than a half dozen are operated with only indifferent 
success. In varying degrees this same decrease in numbers has taken place 
upon every fishing ground of the Great Lakes, in a great many places to such 
an extent that operations have been entirely abandoned. 

Why should this be so? If we can answer this question, and if the causes 
can be eliminated or in some measure restricted and controlled, we will have 
found a solution of our problem in so far as a solution is possible. 

First. The cutting of our forests and consequent floods and erosion of the 
soil, the discharge of sawdust and other refuse from the lumber and pulp mills, 
chemical works, and sugar factories, which go to make up the industrial life of 
the cities situated on the Great Lakes, have made the deposits from the mouths 
of oiu" rivers offensive to the dainty senses of the whitefish and have gradually 
encroached upon its spawning and feeding grounds to such an extent that in 
thousands and thousands of acres which at one time were teeming with this 
species it is now an absolute stranger. This damage can not now be undone, 
but by wise legislation the cause of it may be to some extent prevented from 
further offenses. 

Second. The operation of the commercial fisheries under unwise laws and 
the nonenforcement of good laws has, in my judgment, contributed in a greater 
degree toward the decrease of the whitefish than all of the other causes put 
together. Most of the law-making bodies of the states bordering upon the 
Great Lakes have put the cart before the horse, so to speak. By their enact- 
ments they have permitted the taking of this fish at all times except during 
the spawning season and the period of incubation, which all students of fish 
culture insist is a kind of alleged protective legislation that does not protect. 
If we are to have closed-season laws they should cover the month or months 
when the largest lifts of unripe fish are made. It is then that our whitefish need 
protection, for their ova are immature and we can not half so well spare the 
parents as we can during the spawning season. When unripe adults are caught 
for market all their spawn is necessarily wasted, whereas if protected until the 
spawning season the different commissions would be given an opportunity to 
save the ova, hatch the fish, plant them in the lakes, and thus by artificial 
propagation cause each ripe female to furnish thousands of her kind. We have 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 639 

hatcheries to care for the ova, and, if the present number is insufficient, let us 
build and equip others ; in any event let us not expect nature to make a complete 
revision of her fundamental laws merely to accommodate herself to the lack of 
foresight and the inconsistency of mankind. 

We need no protection for mature fish, except, as above stated, during the 
months when the largest lifts of unripe fish are made. The young fish should 
be protected against the adults. These are the enemies and food competitors 
of the growing generations, and the quantity of food that a dozen adults con- 
sume will sulTice for the support of thousands of fry. The question may properly 
be asked, do the fry subsist upon the same individual food that the adults 
require? Strictly speaking, they do not ; but the source from which the growing 
generations derive their food supply is at least indirectly dependent upon the 
higher groups which the adults do destroy. 

For these reasons, therefore, I contend that the so-called closed-season 
laws as they now exist are all wrong. Of course, I am not one of those enthusiasts 
who believe that our lakes may be made to teem once again with the countless 
millions of the early days, even with the assistance of the wisest possible legis- 
lation and most successful artificial propagation. The conditions have been 
changed and I know of no way whereby they can be restored. The formerly 
vast and almost unlimited areas of spawning and feeding grounds have been 
gradually destroyed by sawdust, bark, slabs, water-logged timber and other 
refuse, and the water for miles out from shore in the neighborhood of cities and 
towns is constantly being polluted and infected by poisonous sewage and other 
impurities. Because of these unfortunate conditions the present spawning and 
feeding grounds are confined to a few localities. 

f^MEDlAL MEASURES. 

But that the whitefish of the Great Lakes can be increased very materially in 
spite of these difficulties which the fish culturist is forced to encounter I am very 
strongly convinced. This can be done only by closely adhering to some such 
plan of action as I shall outline in the remainder of this paper, and which I con- 
tend, and shall endeavor to convince my hearers is the only possible solution 
of the problem. 

(l) INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION. 

First, there must be concerted action, by means of a treaty or otherwise, 
on the part of the United States Government and the Dominion of Canada, 
and such action must be carried on to the point where there shall be one set 
of laws applicable to all the waters of the Great Lakes and their tributaries, 
and enforceable on the part of either government in any part of its own or 



640 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

the other's territory. I would also repeal and abolish all of the existing laws 
of the several states and provinces in so far as they deal with the food fishes 
of the Great Lakes, so that the question of proper authority and jurisdiction 
could never arise. The greatest advantages to be gained by thus placing the 
Great Lakes under the control of the two governments would be the more 
rigid enforcement of the laws and the removal of legal proceeding from the 
universally conceded local influence over local juries. A uniform law such as 
I deem to be adequate to afford the fullest measure of protection for the 
whitefish should be framed along the following lines: 

(i) Issue to the present United States and Canadian fishermen, or to 
anyone who shall subsequently apply therefor, a revocable license to fish the 
waters of the Great Lakes and their tributaries; such license to be suspended 
for six months for the first violation, one year for the second, and forever 
forfeited without hope of reinstatement upon a third violation of the protective 
laws. 

(2) Provide for an open season during the months when the fish are 
spawning and a closed season during the month or months when the largest 
lifts of unripe fish are made. 

(3) Prevent any sort of fishing in certain localities where large numbers 
of immature fish congregate upon the feeding grounds, this legislation to 
pertain to all portions of the Great Lakes system where the presence of such 
fish has been established and to be enforced during such month or months as 
they make their appearance in large numbers for feeding purposes. 

(4) Prevent the sale or offering for sale or the use of immature wliitefish 
in any manner except for charitable purposes, the size of a mature fish to be 
legally fixed for this purpose at 2>^ pounds. This would discourage the capture 
of immature fish and protect them upon their feeding grounds, where they 
assemble in schools. 

(5) Make no restrictions of any kind whatsoever as to the kind of nets or 
the size of the mesh which the fishermen may use in their operations, because, 
in my judgment, the provisions of this character which are now a part of the 
present local laws have furnished even more opportunities for the fishermen 
to escape conviction than the influence upon local juries. Rigidly enforce the 
provisions regulating the size of the fish which may be sold, and the size of 
the mesh, kind of net, and manner of capture will be regulated by the fishermen 
themselves. 

(6) As a part of this legislation let there be a provision requiring all 
fishermen who operate in the territory comprising the Great Lakes and their 
tributaries to take and fertilize all of the spawn contained in every ripe female 
that is caught during the spawning season, further details of which plan I 
shall discuss under another topic. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 64I 

The above-outlined six provisions would, in my judgment, constitute an 
adequate law for the greatest protection and consequent increase of the whitefish 
that it would be possible to give them. If a uniform law can be agreed upon 
and framed along these lines, and then enforced with the same watchful 
diligence with which the revenue laws of both countries are enforced to-day, 
there is no room for argument against the statement that, aided by artificial 
propagation on a large scale, the whitefish may be increased so materially 
that at no very distant future date the fisherman's net will be found to contain 
dozens where there is one to-day. 

(2) ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION. 

Now while a uniform, adequate, and rigidly enforced set of laws is of the 
greatest necessity in bringing about a material increase in the whitefish, 
propagation upon a large scale is absolutely indispensable. That artificial 
propagation of the whitefish as it has been worked out and practiced during 
the past twenty years by the several states and the United States and Canadian 
governments has been the means of effecting an actual increase of this species, 
there is at this day no one so bold that he dare dispute. Statistics have been 
prepared and published which show that until within the past six or seven 
years from two-thirds to three-quarters of all plants of whitefish fry have 
been in Lake Erie and the Detroit River, and the fact is well known that in 
these waters there has been a large increase in their numbers. The United 
States Government during its operations at Belle Isle and Grassy Island in 
the Detroit River for the past few seasons has taken from 25 to 50 per cent 
more whitefish at these points than the Michigan Fish Commission did a decade 
ago, the fishing continuing for no longer a period each season and being with 
the same kind and length of seines. 

Now, by artificial propagation on a large scale I mean the production of 
whitefish fry in such numbers that every suitable locality on the Great Lakes 
may have the same, or, if possible, greater opportunities to assist in this increase 
than have been afforded Lake Erie and the Detroit River. This would involve 
the planting of from two to five billion fry annually, and the following plan, 
if adopted, would easily furnish, in my judgment, a sufficient number to bring 
about the required results: 

Every fisherman operating in the waters of the Great Lakes should be 
required to strip every ripe female caught during the spawning season and 
impregnate the eggs taken therefrom. This would operate as an annual tax 
upon the fishermen, the expense being probably from $25 to $100 per boat. 
At the present time from 50 to 75 per cent of the fishermen are perfectly 
famihar with the methods employed in successful spawntaking, and there 

B. B. F. 1908—41 



642 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 

would be very little difficulty in having the inexperienced taught by the experts 
in the employ of the two governments. After impregnation all of the spawn 
should be turned over to United States and Canadian government agents for 
shipment to the several hatcheries, where the eggs could be cared for and the 
fry distributed in a wide range throughout the entire Great Lakes system. 
The eggs taken by each fisherman should be measured and kept separate from 
the others throughout the incubation period. This would involve but very little 
additional labor and would be of very material assistance to those agents of the 
two governments upon whom would be placed the responsibility of enforcing the 
protective laws ; and such a record would not only show exactly which fishermen 
were improperly impregnating the eggs taken, but by comparison with the size of 
their catch during the spawning season it could be satisfactorily determined 
whether or not they obeyed the law prescribing that all ripe females should be 
stripped. Of course, a fisherman might be the victim of ill luck throughout one 
season, but a recurrence of an unsatisfactory showing would put him under suspi- 
cion, and with the penalty of a forfeiture of his license hanging over his head he 
could be very easily made to see the error of his way. Finally, the Detroit 
River must be closed to all fishing at all times, except with rod and line, and 
must be constituted a joint government reservation, controlled and used by 
the two governments for collecting stations. 

If the present facilities for handling the product from these two sources 
are not sufficient, hatching and distributing stations can be arranged for easily 
and without any great amount of expense. Such a station with a producing 
capacity of 50,000,000 iry can be constructed and equipped at a cost not 
exceeding $1 ,500, and the same can be operated at an annual expenditure of $500. 

This is my plan, in the rough to be sure, but with its essential outlines 
sufficiently distinct to make the work of preparing and putting into execution 
an adequate system for the proper protection and consequent increase of the 
whitefish in the Great Lakes a comparatively easy task. It is self-evident that, 
inasmuch as the life and growth of the whitefish industry of our inland seas 
are directly dependent upon the maintenance of supply, the plan which will 
best promote the industry will be the one which will insure the greatest increase 
in the species. 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES 



By Paul Reighard 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 



Paper presented before the Fourth International Fishery Congress 
held at Washington, U. S. A., September 22 to 26, 1 908, and 
awarded the prize of one hundred dollars in gold offered by 
the Wolverine Fish Company, of Detroit, Mich., for the best 
plan to promote the whitefish production of the Great Lakes 



643 



CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Approach to the problem 645 

Method of investigation ^ 646 

Natural history of the whitefish 649 

Sources of information 649 

Kinds of whitefish 650 

Depths at which whitefish occur 650 

Areas of bottom frequented by whitefish 652 

Migrations 653 

Local habits of whitefish 654 

Whitefish areas of Great Lakes 655 

EflFect of propagation upon whitefish production in Great Lakes 660 

Annual catch and plant in Michigan and Canadian waters 660 

Discussion of average catch and plant for certain areas 656 

Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Superior 666 

Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Huron 668 

Canadian waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario 669 

Restricted areas of Lake Michigan t 67 1 

Production compared with intensity of plant 673 

Conclusions as to effect of propagation 673 

Effect of legislative enactment on whitefish production 676 

Summary of conclusions 681 

Measures recommended as means of increasing whitefish production in the Great Lakes 682 

Bibliography 683 

644 



A PLAN FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



By PAUL REIGHARD, 
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 



APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. 

In attempting to devise a plan for the promotion of the whitefish produc- 
tion of the Great Lakes it appears that certain avenues of approach available in 
the case of cognate problems are in this case closed. This will perhaps become 
clear if we first consider the possible modes of accomplishing the purpose. 
The procedures that suggest themselves are those which might be followed in 
any like problem , and may be conveniently grouped in the following way : 

Preservative measures: 

1. Prevention of the water pollution which may occur through the 

agency of sewage, garbage dumps, sawdust or other manufacturing 
refuse, cinders, ashes, and other refuse from steamers and other 
boats. 

2. Restriction of fishing operations (limitations on fishing season and 

on character and number of nets to be used) . 
Restorative measures: 

3. Distribution of fry. 

4. Introduction of improved races of whitefish. 

5. Increase of the food of the whitefish. 

Experiments on the effect of water pollution on fish have been conducted 
abroad and are summarized by Professor Prince (1900). The investigations 
carried out for the Canadian government by Mr. Knight (1901 and 1907) on the 
effect upon fish of the pollution of Canadian streams by the refuse of sawmills, 
pulp mills, gas works, and nail mills are noteworthy, but do not appear to have 
any application to the Great Lakes. In this country we appear to have no simi- 
lar published investigation, so that we have no means of knowing the extent of 
water pollution in the Great Lakes or its effect on the whitefish. We are 
therefore compelled in this paper to disregard a possible means of increasing the 
whitefish production through the prevention of water pollution. 

645 



646 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

When it is desired to increase the production of domestic plants or animals, 
this is often most readily done by increasing the food supply. In other cases the 
result may be accomplished by creating a race of larger individuals, or one that 
breeds more rapidly. These two methods have been applied to domestic forms, 
but the first of them is often made use of also with game birds and mammals. 
The whitefish of the Great Lakes lives at depths of from 10 to 50 fathoms, scat- 
tered over an area of 25,700 square miles. (See p. 653.) Our knowledge of 
its mode of life, its daily and yearly movements, and its whereabouts during 
the growth period is meager. It is impossible, therefore, with present knowledge 
and under existing conditions, to attempt to increase the natural food of the 
whitefish. To suggest that it may be possible to produce a race of whitefish that 
would breed more rapidly than our present race, or appropriate food not utilized 
by the present whitefish, or occupy areas of the lake bottom now barren of 
whitefish, is to state a problem the solution of which must lie far in the future. 
The breeding of improved races of fish must begin with forms more readily con- 
trolled than the whitefish. There remain but two methods by which we may 
hope to increase the whitefish production of the Great Lakes, namely, to greatly 
increase the number of artificially hatched fry introduced into the lakes annually 
or to enact restrictive legislation which shall prevent the further depletion of 
productive waters and shall at the same time give an opportunity for depleted 
waters to become again productive. The present paper attempts a discussion 
of these two methods (2 and 3 of the foregoing analysis). 

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. 

In undertaking an inquiry of this sort it is impossible to make personal inves- 
tigation of the whitefish in the field. The vastness of the areas involved and the 
depth at which the fish lives precludes this in the case of the individual investi- 
gator. He must necessarily base his work on data gathered by those who have 
worked with the help of the various state and national governments bordering 
on the Great Lakes. The problem is essentially one of statistics. The investiga- 
tor wishes to know what amount of whitefish have been taken in each part of the 
Great Lakes over a long period of years ; what kinds and quantities of nets have 
been used in their capture; under what legislative restrictions these have been 
used; what quantities of young fish have been introduced into the Great Lakes 
and into each part of them to replenish the waters from which the adults have 
been taken. 

Fishing operations are carried on, or have been carried on, wholly by private 
individuals or corporations in the waters of the following States: Indiana, Illinois, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as in 
the waters of the Dominion of Canada. The fishery laws of these various govern- 
ments are diverse, and have been changed from time to time in the past. It is 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 647 

therefore difficult to find any well-defined area in the American waters of the 
Great Lakes which has been fished under uniform conditions for a period suffi- 
ciently long to permit conclusions to be drawn as to the effect of that fishing. 

Not only have the conditions under which the fishing has been carried on 
varied from time to time in any one locality and at any one time from locality 
to locality, but no complete records are available of the fishing operations in the 
Great Lakes as a whole, or in any single lake, except Lake Huron, for any con- 
tinuous period of years. The United States Fish Commission (now the Bureau 
of Fisheries) has caused statistics to be collected on the fisheries of the Great 
Lakes about once in five years, and these are available for the following years: 
1880, 1885, 1890, 1893, 1899, 1903. The Michigan fish commission has since 
1 89 1 employed a statistical agent, who has annually visited each fisherman and 
personally taken from his books the records of the fish caught and of the nets used. 
The Canadian Department of Marine and Fisheries has for the past thirty -eight 
years published in its annual report detailed statistics of the fisheries in Canadian 
waters. The remaining governments, with the exception of Pennsylvania, are 
able to afford no information about the fishing operations within their borders. 

Not only is investigation hampered by the paucity of statistics, but the 
reliability of the available statistics is often a matter of serious question. The 
difficulties in dealing with whitefish statistics arise from two sources. Even 
when statistics are available for like periods and over the same areas they are 
often widely at variance. The Michigan statistics are taken annually by a 
statistical agent who is in the field almost constantly and who by his long service, 
begun in 1891, has gained the confidence of the fishermen. They are taken 
under a law which requires the fishermen to make sworn returns of their catches. 
Considering all the circumstances, they are probably as accurate as such statistics 
can be made. The data that it has been found possible to use in this paper are 
cliiefly those of the Michigan and Canadian fisheries. 

The second source of difficulty referred to has to do with the use of the term 
"whitefish." Four fishes of commercial importance are referred to as whitefish. 
These are the common or true whitefish (Coregonus clupeiformis Mitchill), the 
longjaw {Argyrosomus prognathus H. M. Smith), the blackfin, bluefin, or bloater 
{Argyrosomus nigripinnis Gill), and the Menominee whitefish {Coregonus quad- 
rilateralis Richardson). Subsequent to 1891-92 these forms are distinguished 
in the statistical reports of the L^nited States Fish Commission, but previous to 
1893 "whitefish" only are mentioned. The published reports of the Michigan 
Fish Commission, as well as the unpublished records of their statistical agent, 
exclude menominees, blackfins, and longjaws from the rubric "whitefish," 
which therefore includes only true whitefish. The statistics collected by the 
Department of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, I am assured, 
include true whitefish only and exclude longjaws and blackfins. Our com- 



648 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

parisons are therefore necessarily limited to the whitefish production of those 
waters that lie within the borders of the Dominion of Canada and of the State 
of Michigan for the period 1892 to 1906, inclusive, and to the Great Lakes as a 
whole for the years subsequent to 1893. In the latter case, however, statistics 
are available only at five-year intervals. 

The distribution of whitefish fry is carried on at the expense of the state 
and national governments, and the annual official reports therefore contain full 
statements as to the number of fry distributed and the location of each plant. 
Whitefish fry have been distributed by the states named above with the exception 
of Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, and by both of the national governments, 
although the states of Ohio and Michigan have not distributed whitefish fry in 
recent years. 

By combining the statistics of the Michigan fisheries with those of the 
Dominion of Canada, complete returns are available of the catch of whitefish 
and of the nets used for Lake Huron for the years 1892 to 1906, inclusive. The 
exact number of pounds of whitefish brought in by each fisherman on this lake 
and the precise length of the nets used in the lake are recorded for each of these 
fifteen years. The plant of whitefish fry in this lake may be obtained by com- 
bining the figures of the Michigan and Canadian plants for the whole lake or for 
any part of it. We may thus study in this lake, or in any part of it, the effect 
of the distribution of whitefish fry on the catch of adult fish for a period of fifteen 
years. By comparing Canadian and Michigan waters for the same period, we 
may study the effect on the production of whitefish of certain restrictive enact- 
ments which have been enforced in Canada but not in Michigan. By similar 
methods we may study certain areas in Lakes Superior, Michigan, Erie, and 
Ontario, from which we have statistics from either Michigan or Canadian sources. 

In statistics of the catch of whitefish, figures of single years have little 
significance, since the catch of one year may be large owing to the weather con- 
ditions of that year having been favorable for fishing, while the catch of another 
year with which the first may be compared may be small owing to unfavorable 
weather conditions during that year, or the market price in one year may have 
been high, with a consequent stimulation of fishing operations, while in another 
year it may have been low, with a consequent curtailment of those operations. 
These annual fluctuations make it necessary to compare with one another not 
single 3'ears but periods of years. In the present paper market fluctuations 
are not considered, since the price of whitefish does not tend to fluctuate but 
rather increases steadil)', while by comparing the average outputs of the three 
successive five-year periods comprised in the years 1892 to 1906, inclusive, an 
attempt is made to avoid the errors introduced by annual variations in the 
weather of the fishing season. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 649 

The condition of the fisheries is usually expressed by giving the annual 
catch, but as was pointed out by Rathbun and Wakeham (1893), "the best 
statistical test of a decrease is a comparison of the average catches per unit of 
apparatus for the several years for which statistics are available." In com- 
paring the catches of different periods I have therefore reduced the average 
catch of each period to "pound-fathoms" by dividing the actual catch expressed 
in pounds by the length of gill and pound nets expressed in fathoms. I have 
thus obtained the catch in pounds per unit of net length. Unfortunately in 
making these calculations I have been unable to separate the gill and pound 
nets which have taken whitefish from those which have not, so that the values 
given in the tables in this paper are the lengths of all gill and pound nets used in 
the waters in question whether the nets have or have not taken whitefish. 

I have attempted, also, to consider the output of whitefish in its relation 
to the areas of the Great Lakes bottom occupied by them during that season 
of the year when they are not migrating. By dividing the number which ex- 
presses in poimds the catch of a lake or of any part of a lake by the number of 
square miles of lake bottom ordinarily occupied by the fish in question, I have 
obtained a pound-mile unit which is made use of in another part of this paper, 
where also the method of measuring the areas is described. By the device of 
the pound-mile it is hoped that in a measure errors have been avoided which 
arise from the comparison of the catches of different years when the areas fished 
over in those years have not been the same. 

The present paper then attempts to utilize the available statistics in an 
examination of the individual Great Lakes and of parts of lakes to see what 
lessons may be learned by a comparison of those areas which, have been fished 
under one set of regulations with those that have been fished under a different 
set of regulations, and by a comparison of those areas which have been abun- 
dantly planted with those that have been less liberally treated. I am indebted 
to the United States Bureau of Fisheries for kindly obtaining information for 
me from the states of New York and Pennsylvania, to the Wisconsin Fish Com- 
mission for information furnished, to the Michigan Fish Commission for per- 
mission to make excerpts from the original records on file in their office and as 
yet unpublished, and to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion 
of Canada for printed documents and excerpts from official records. 

NATURAL HISTORY OF THE WHITEFISH. 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 

In the report of the joint commissioners relative to the preservation of 
fisheries in waters contiguous to the United States and Canada, Messrs. Rathbun 
and Wakeham (1897) have collected a large amount of evidence concerning the 



650 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

habits of the whitefish. This evidence, which is summarized in the report 
referred to above, consists of the statements of fishermen as to the depths at 
which whitefish are taken in the different lakes, their distribution, migrations, 
and other habits. This report, together with the statements of Prof. H. B. 
Ward in his report on Lake Michigan in the Traverse Bay region (Ward, 1896) 
form the basis of the following account. The earlier works of Milner (1874) 
and Smith (1893) have also been consulted. 

KINDS OF WHITEFISH. 

By the term whitefish as used in this section of the present paper is to be 
understood the true whitefish or common whitefish (Coregonus clupeiformis 
Mitchill) unless otherwise stated. Fishermen, while they distinguish readily 
between the true whitefish and other related species, nevertheless often report 
them together as whitefish and statistical reports are necessarily based on their 
statements. Thus in the most recent statistical reports of the United States 
Bureau of Fisheries, Alexander (1905) separates whitefish, longjaws, and blue- 
fins in Lakes Superior and Michigan, and whitefish, longjaws, and menominees 
in Lake Huron, but lists whitefish only in Lakes Erie and Ontario, although 
the latter lake, at least, contains longjaws (Smith 1895). The Michigan and 
Canadian statistics refer to whitefish only. The data used in the present paper 
are those which refer to true whitefish only. 

DEPTHS AT WHICH WHITEFISH OCCUR. 

The following statements as to the depths at which whitefish are found are 
taken from Rathbun and Wakeham (1897) except that for Lake Michigan, 
which is from Ward (1896) : 

Fathoms. 

Lake Ontario 10-20 

Lake Erie 1 2-30 

Lake Huron 1 0-35 

Lake Michigan 1 2-20 

Lake Superior 10-50 

The depth data given for Lake Michigan are specifically stated by Professor 
Ward to be depths of the true whitefish in summer, and to be the range over 
which the fish is the most numerous. It occurs in small numbers in both shal- 
lower and deeper water. The depths given for Lakes Ontario and Erie are no 
doubt also those at which the true whitefish is found during the greater part of 
the year. The greater depths given for Lake Huron possibly cover also the 
range of the longjaw, wlfich is stated by Ward to occur in greatest abundance 
from 20 to 25 fathoms in Lake Michigan, although Smith (1895) states that in 
Lake Ontario they range as deep as 11 6 fathoms and in August as shallow as 
20 fathoms. The range in Lake Superior also possibly covers more than the 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 65 1 

true whitefish, but this is uncertain. It may cover in part the range of the 
blackfin (Argyrosomus nigripinnis) , which is stated by Ward to be in Lake 
Michigan rare in less than 40 fathoms. I have placed the inshore range of the 
whitefish of Lake Superior at 10 fathoms, although Rathbun and Wakeham 
make no statement on this point, but say merely that the fish ranges "outward 
into depths of 40 to 50 fathoms, seldom farther, and in some places coming 
close upon the shore diu-ing the spawning season and in the spring." I 
have assumed the inshore range on Lake Superior to be about the same during 
most of the year as in the other lakes. 

The most careful investigation of the food of the whitefish and of the 
related fishes we owe to Ward (1896), who finds as a result of the examination 
of 14 individuals taken in summer that on the average 63 per cent (by volume) 
of the food of the true whitefish consists of small bottom crustaceans, 26 per 
cent of small mollusks, 5 per cent of insect larvae and 2 per cent of small fish. 
Small brown stones were also found commonly in the stomachs. "The con- 
siderable part played by the mollusks and insect larvae, both of which are 
strictly bottom forms, shows that the common whitefish is to a large extent a 
bottom feeder. This view is strengthened by the down-pointed sucker-like 
mouth of the fish as well as by the presence in the stomachs of numbers of small 
stones, which were undoubtedly snapped up with some morsel of food" (Ward, 
1896). The food of the longjaw Ward found to consist of small Crustacea to 
the extent on the average of 97 per cent of the whole (volume), while the food 
of the two specimens of blackfin examined contained Crustacea to the extent of 
97 per cent of the volume. The absence of stones, mollusks, and insect larvae from 
the stomachs of these two forms and the presence in them of free swimming Crus- 
tacea, as well as the form of the mouth of the fish themselves, show that they 
feed not on the bottom, but just above it. All of these whitefishes therefore 
feed on the bottom or just above it, but differ in their depth range during the 
greater part of the year, the true whitefish ranging from 10 fathoms outward, 
but rarely being taken in more than 35 fathoms, the longjaw ranging from 20 
fathoms outward, occurring in greatest abundance between 20 and 25 fathoms 
and reaching in winter a depth of 1 16 fathoms, the blackfin occurring rarely in 
less than 40 fathoms and most abundant at 70 fathoms and upward. 

The ranges indicated above as occupied by the whitefish are its feeding 
grounds during eight or nine months in the year. It enters shallow water 
in the southern lakes in June and July, and returns again to the deeper water 
about the ist of August. The cause of this shoreward migration is dis- 
cussed by Milner (1874), but he does not mention one very probable cause, 
namely, that the period of this shoreward summer migration is that when the 
insect larvae upon which the migrating fish feed (Kiel, 1874) are most abundant. 
It is quite possible that the migration takes place as a search for a more abundant 



652 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

food. The summer migration of the whitefish occurs apparently in all the 
Great Lakes. Milner (1874) reports it in Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, 
and Ontario, and Rathbun and Wakeham (1897) report it in Lake Erie. The 
date of its occurrence no doubt varies with the latitude. A second inshore 
migration occurs in the fall, taking place in November in the more southern 
latitudes and occupying about a month in any latitude. It is the spawning 
migration, during which the fish visit the shallower water to deposit their eggs. 
From Lake Erie this migration formerly extended to the St. Clair River and 
Lake St. Clair and it still extends into the Detroit River, but in the other lakes 
the location of the spawning grounds and the related extent of the migration 
are little understood. 

Milner states (1874, p. 85, 92) that the fish do not eat while spawning, or 
have very little in their stomachs. In this respect their habits are like those 
of many other Salmonidse imder like circumstances. If we accept this state- 
ment, then the food of the whitefish, except during the spring migration, is 
obtained within the depth range indicated above. Diu-ing nine months of the 
year they are on this range; during June and July in southern latitudes and 
probably for a corresponding period in more northern latitudes they are engaged 
in the so-called spring migration; during one month (November in southern 
latitudes) they are engaged in the spawnmg or fall migration and during this 
time they do not feed or feed very little. The existence of the species therefore 
depends on the utilization of the range referred to. The capacity of any of the 
Great Lakes to produce whitefish must depend on the extent of this range, 
assuming the existence of suitable spawning grounds. If we accept Milner's 
statement (1874, p. 61-62) that young whitefish of less than iX pounds weight 
are found in water from 20 to 45 feet deep and thereafter enter deep water, the 
above proposition still stands essentially unmodified, for the production of 
commercial whitefish or breeding whitefish would still be in relation to the area 
of the range which furnishes them with food during nine months in the year. 
These areas I shall refer to hereafter as whitefish areas. 

AREAS OF BOTTOM FREQUENTED BY WHITEFISH. 

In the accompanying maps (fig. i to 5) we have attempted to indicate the 
extent of the whitefish areas for each of the Great Lakes. These are the areas 
within which the fishermen find the whitefish when carrying on commercial 
fishing operations at other times than during the fall and spring migrations. 
They are the areas over which it is, or has been, profitable to fish, and outside of 
which the whitefish is found in relatively small numbers. The maps have been 
made by tracing the appropriate fathom lines on the United States engineer 
charts of the Great Lakes. They are sufficiently explained in the legends 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



653 



attached to them. In the following table we have given the whitefish areas for 
each of the Great Lakes together with the extent in square miles of the lakes 
themselves. These whitefish areas have been obtained by measuring with a 
planimeter the areas plotted on the maps. The lake areas are taken from 
H. M. Smith, 1894. 

Area of each of the Great Lakes, Whitefish Area of each, and Percentage of 

Whitefish Area. 





Total area. 


WhiteSsh area. 


Percentage 
of whitefish 




Square mites. 
3J, 000 

6, soo 


Square miles. 
7,400 
2, 600 
9, 400 
4, 100 


23 






45 
43 
34 








ToUl 


91.000 


2S, 700 


28 







It is to be noted that the area occupied by the true whitefish is relatively 
least in Lake Michigan, where it forms but 12 per cent of the lake area. Lake 
Erie comes next with a whitefish area 14 per cent of its total area, if the eastern 
part of the lake only is taken, but if the western platform of Lake Erie be included 
over depths of 12 to 30 fathoms, its whitefish area is raised to 4,100 square miles, 
or 43 per cent of that whole area. Whitefish are taken on those parts of the 
platform of suitable depth, but in relatively small numbers. 

MIGRATIONS. 

The whitefish do not wander about at random in these areas, so that the fish 
of one lake pass into another lake, or those of one part of a lake to a distant 
part of the same lake. On the other hand, such evidence as we have indicates 
that the whitefish, like other fish, are during the greater part of the year local in 
their habits. Their migrations during the breeding season have been already 
sufficiently referred to, so that we need consider here only the wanderings of the 
fish during the rest of the year. In general it may be said that the wanderings 
of fish are by no means fortuitous and, except in the breeding season, are of 
limited extent. This subject is discussed at some length by Professor Prince 
(1907) and need not detain us further here. The relative local habits of the 
nonmigrating herring in England, of the shad in this country, and of the salmon 
are now well understood. It is well known to fishermen ' and to dealers who 
handle whitefish that the fish of different lakes are so unlike that one who is 
accustomed to them can readily distinguish them. Each lake has its own race 
and these races do not intermingle by running from lake to lake. 



654 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

LOCAL HABITS OF WHITEFISH. 

Not only does each lake have its race of whitefish, but there are reasons for 
the belief that parts of lakes are inhabited by races peculiar to them. On this 
point Milner (1874, p. 47) has the fohowing to say: 

The presence of large whitefish in numbers in certain localities on the north shore of 
Lake Michigan, of a size that are never taken at other parts of the lake, would indicate a 
local habit, with no disposition to range through long distances. 

Another observation, sustaining the probability of this, is the fact that there are 
many localities on the lakes where the pound nets, a few years ago, found prosperous 
fishing, and in the first few years took the whitefish in great abundance, but found 
afterwards a decrease from year to year until the locality was abandoned, while 50 
miles away the business continued successful. 

******* 

The fact that certain types of whitefish are peculiar to certain localities, as the north 
shore of Lake Michigan, the Sault Ste. Marie Rapids, Bachewauna Bay on Lake Su- 
perior, indicates a local habit through many generations until certain characters of a 
race have become established. The same fact has been stated for the shad on the 
Atlantic coast. 

Some observations made in 1871 perhaps indicate the opposite of all the foregoing 
statements. 

In the early part of the season there had been a few fish caught on the west shore of 
Lake Michigan between Chicago and the Door Islands. South of Chicago, at the mouth 
of the Calumet River, the run of whitefish was in excess of anything had for years. But 
about the 15th of June the schools of fish left Calumet, and a few days later there was a 
decided improvement in the catch at Evanston. About June 22 the lifts at Waukegan 
began to be heavier than they had been before. During the first week of July the fishing 
was observed to improve at Milwaukee, Manitowoc, Baileys Harbor, and, a little later, at 
the Door Islands. 

The coincidence in dates rather indicates that the same schools of fish that clogged 
the nets at Calumet during six or seven weeks had ranged northward along 260 miles of 
coast. Still the eff'ect upon the fishing would have been the same if it had been the 
migrations of schools of fish from deep water at these points in to the shore. 

The explanation here offered by Milner, that the phenomenon described in 
the paragraph is indeed due to the inshore migration of local groups of whitefish 
beginning at the southern end of the lake and proceeding northward on the west 
shore, is most probable and is in harmony with the other facts which he cites, 
as well as with what we now know of local races in other species of fish. 

We are concerned here only with those movements of the whitefish which 
take place out of the spawning season, yet it may not be without interest to cite 
further from Milner to show that even during the spawning run the movements 
of the fish are more local than would be thought. He says: 

It is a singular fact that the whitefish are not known to descend from Lake Huron 
into the St. Clair River. This is established by abundant evidence from continued 
fishing at Fort Gratiot, where Mr. Clark, between the years 1830 and 1842, took large 
quantities of the wall-eyed pike, Stizostedion amcricana, taking frequently 1,000 barrels 
a year. The catch of whitefish amounted to an occasional supply for his own table, 
except after long continued storms from the northward, when the fish sometimes entered 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 655 

the river in schools. They were never found in this portion of the river in the spawning 
season. 

The same fact is claimed by the Indians in the Sault Ste. Marie River, that the 
whitefishes of the lake above never descend the rapids, while the whitefishes of the river, 
it is also asserted, never ascend to Lake Superior. There is not as good evidence for the 
truth in this locality as at Fort Gratiot ; still it may be the case. 

The evidence collected by Rathbun and Wakeham points also to the local 
habit of the whitefish of Lake Ontario. They say (p. 60) : 

There does not seem to have been any regular migration of these fish lengthwise of 
the lake. They occurred along a narrow border of the lake and simply moved to feeding 
grounds in the spring and to spawning grounds in the fall wherever the shoal water was 
suitable. There they were most abundant, and on these areas we still find the remnant 
of them. 

Again they say of Lake Huron: 

The movements of the whitefish in Lake Huron are, in general, less definite than in 
Lake Erie, being confined to shoreward migrations in the spring and fall. These 
migrations appear to be accompanied by no extensive progress alongshore, except at 
Detour, where the spring run is said to have a general easterly direction, appearing first 
near Detour and then passing down the North Channel into Georgian Bay. 

It would be easy to compile evidence from the statistical returns of the 
Michigan fish commission to show^ the local habit of the whitefish, from the fact 
that fisheries have often been depleted in one locality while remaining profitable 
in other localities 25 to 50 miles distant, but the facts already cited seem to 
be sufficient for the purpose. 

WHITEFISH AREAS OF GREAT LAKES. 

An examination of the whitefish areas as platted on the accompanying maps 
tends to strengthen this view of the local habit of the whitefish. In Lakes 
Superior, Ontario, and Michigan we see this area stretching in a relatively narrow 
zone along the whole shore. This zone incloses a central area of deeper water 
which separates the whitefish area of one side of the lake from that of the other 
side and is probably never crossed by these fish. Within it occvu the blackfins 
and longjaws. In Lake Huron we see a similar condition of affairs for the main 
lake, but in Georgian Bay we find the greater part of the area taken up by white- 
fish grounds. Here the deep water is not central in the whitefish area but is 
displaced toward the southwest so as to leave the marginal whitefish area very 
narrow on one side of the lake and very broad on the other side. In the North 
Channel of Lake Huron a continuous whitefish area occupies its center uninter- 
rupted by a deeper middle water. In this lake the reef which cuts obliquely 
across the main lake is said not to harbor whitefish in commercial quantities 
and not to afford them spawning ground. It is therefore not included in the 
whitefish area, although of suitable depth, and its extent is indicated on the map 
in outline only. 



656 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 




THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 




B. B. F. 1908 — 42 



658 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



In Lake Erie the whitefish area is divided into two portions — a western, which 
occupies the central portion of the lake west of Conneaut and is not interrupted 
by deeper middle water, and an eastern, which lies eastward of Conneaut and 
contains a small central middle portion of deeper water. The two portions are 
connected by a narrow neck at their southern borders. So far as I can learn 
the whitefish appear to confine themselves during most of the year to the eastern 
portion of this area, though for what reason is unknown. 




PORT HURON 

Fig. 3.— L.\KE HURON. 

Whitefish area (shown in black). 10 to 35 fathoms. (Reduced from U. S. Hydrographic Office chart no. 1478. Scale: 

I in. = about 46.8 miles.) 

More careful examination of the maps shows that while the whitefish 
area is continuous in most of the lakes about the whole border, this is not the 
case in Lake Michigan. Just south of Little Point Au Sable the area is nearly 
interrupted, and to the north of this it breaks up into numerous small areas which 
are either detached from one another or nearly so. Of course if the deeper 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



659 



limit of the whitefish area had been taken as 30 or 40 fathoms the area would 
become more nearly continuous. In selecting 20 fathoms as the deeper limit 
of this area in Lake Michigan I have been guided by the statements of Ward 
(1896), which seem to merit every confidence. On the map of Lake Michigan I 
have, however, indicated also the 40-fathom limit by a dotted line. The area 
between the dotted line and the black area shows the region which contains 
longjaws in commercial quantities, especially along its shoreward margin. The 
blackfins rarely enter this area, but remain in deeper water. This area is one 
into which the whitefish doubtless wander to a greater or less extent, but accord- 
ing to the statements of Professor Ward, not in commercial quantities. 
The map shows that if this area between the dotted line and the black area be 
included within the range of the true whitefish, that range is even then not con- 




1 {shown in black). 



-LAKE ERIE. 



IS. (Reduced from V . S. Hydrographic Office chart 
in.= about 50 miles.) 



tinuous along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. It is interrupted north of 
Big Point Au Sable and in a number of places still farther north. In handling 
the statistics of these fisheries we have attempted to study discreet areas within 
individual lakes. The extent of these is indicated in another place. 

Within the whole whitefish area of the Great Lakes the production of mar- 
ketable whitefish has greatly declined since the first statistics were taken in 1 880. 
This is evident from a glance at the table given by Alexander (1905, p. 650), 
where is given the whitefish production for each lake for the years 1880, 
1885, 1890, 1893, 1899, 1903. As to the cause of this decrease there is no 
difference of opinion among those who have investigated it. Investigators from 
Milner in 1871 to Rathbun and Wakeham in 1893 to 1 896 have reached but one 
conclusion, namely, that the decrease is due to overfishing. Ward (1896) 



66o 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



strengthens this conclusion when he finds that on grounds where whitefish were 
formerly abundant, but on which they are now scarce, the food of the whitefish 
still exists in apparent abundance. The following quotations from Professor 
Ward are of interest in this connection. He says (p. 24) : 

We are thus forced to the conclusion that the decrease in the whitefish supply can 
have no other cause than overcatching. This is not the place to discuss good and bad 
methods of fishing or remedies for the trouble. Our investigations point unmistakably 
to the cause of the depletion in the whitefish supply; it is the removal from the lakes 
of a larger number than can be replaced by natural processes and than has been success- 
fully returned by artificial hatching. 




Fig. s— lake ONTARIO. 



(Reduced from U. S. Hydrographic Office chart no. 1477. Scale: 
= about 48 miles.) 



Whitefish area (shown in black), 10 to 20 fathon 

Again (p. 67) he says: 

There is a plentiful supply of whitefish food on the old fishing grounds. No reason 
can be assigned for the diminution in the supply of whitefish save overcatching. 

I can only concur in these opinions, which are supported by incontro- 
vertible evidence collected by many investigators. 

EFFECT OF PROPAGATION UPON WHITEFISH PRODUCTION IN THE GREAT LAKES. 



ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT IN MICHIGAN AND CANADIAN WATERS. 

In tables i to 10 are arranged certain data concerning the annual 
catch and annual plant of whitefish in Michigan and Canadian waters of the 
Great Lakes for the fifteen years 1892 to 1906, inclusive. The catch of whitefish 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 66 1 

in Michigan has been taken directly from the original records on file in the office 
of the Michigan Fish Commission, while the catch in Canadian waters has been 
kindly furnished by the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion 
of Canada. The plants of whitefish that have been made in Canadian and Michi- 
gan waters have been taken from the reports of the Department of Marine and 
Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, from the reports of the United States Fish 
Commission, and from the reports of the Michigan Fish Commission. In the 
column headed " Total gill and pound nets in fathoms " are given in fathoms the 
added lengths of gill nets and of pound-net leaders. The lengths of gill nets are 
given in fathoms in the official records. The lengths of pound nets are also given 
in fathoms in the Michigan records, but in the Canadian records the number only 
of pound nets is given, without their lengths. In order to obtain the lengths of 
pound nets used in Canadian waters I have averaged the lengths of approxi- 
mately 1 ,000 Michigan pound nets selected at random, and have multiplied the 
number of Canadian pound nets in each year by this average value. In the last 
column of the tables i to 10 are given the values obtained by dividing the total 
catch of whitefish in pounds by the lengths of gill nets and pound nets in 
fathoms. The figures in this column therefore express in pounds for each year 
the catch of whitefish per fathom of nets used. It should be understood, how- 
ever, that these tables give the total lengths of all gill and pounds nets used in the 
waters referred to whether the nets actually took whitefish or not. I have 
found it impossible to separate the nets which were set for whitefish or which 
took whitefish from those which were set for other fish, and I have been there- 
fore tmder the necessity of taking the total lengths of all gill and pound nets 
used in the waters under discussion. As will appear in the discussion which 
follows, I attach relatively little importance to this part of the table. 

I have already alluded to the difficulty encountered in obtaining statistics 
which deal with whitefish only and which do not include at the same time 
longjaws, bluefins, or menominees. We are assured by the superintendent of 
the Michigan Fish Commission that the data for the catch of whitefish in Michigan 
waters contained in tables i to 10 include true w^hitefish {Coregonus clupeifonnis) 
only, and I am assured that the statistics of the catch of whitefish collected by 
the authorities of the Dominion of Canada and included in tables i to 10 refer 
to the true whitefish only and do not include bluefins or longjaws. These tables 
therefore have a peculiar interest in being, so far as I know, the only tables 
pubUshed of the catch of true whitefish for a continuous period of fifteen years. 



662 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



Table i. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in Canadian 
Waters of Lake Superior for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



1893- 
1894- 
1895- 
1896- 



1903- 
1904- 
190S- 
1906- 



.087. 

947. 
850. 



78.820 
119.670 
162. 650 
206. 760 
189. 640 
245. 100 



146. 425 
133.450 
182. 445 
237. S95 
229.300 
247.400 



o Planted by United States Fish Commission. 

Table 2.— Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish, and Total Length op Nets in Use in Mich- 
igan Waters of Lake Superior (Exclusive of Isle Royal) for each of the Years 1892 
TO 1906, Inclusive. 



1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 

1899 
1900 
1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 
1 90s 

1906 



{"'b; 



18.800 
39. 800, 
16,600 
\ 13.300 
"9.075 

10. 576 



2. 754.200 
2. 423.600 
2.385.100 

X, 401. 900 
1.329.284 
I, 223.940 
I. 128.650 
I. ro6. 050 
1.056.325 

I. 615. 775 

I.345.O0O 

979.000 

I. 061. ISO 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



.089. 
.060. 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



a Planted by Wisconsin and United States Fish Commissions in Chequamegon Bay; adjacent to Michigan waters 
not included in calculations of table. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



663 



Table 3. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in 
Michigan Waters op the North Shore of Lake Michigan from Wisconsin Border to 
THE Strait of Mackinaw for each op the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive." 



1892- 
1893- 
.1894- 
189s- 
1896- 
1897- 



1903- 
1904- 
190S- 

l9o6_ 



8.S00 
4.000 
7.386 



Catch, 


n 


pound 




1.093 


183 


952 


010 


576 


100 


461 


66T 


870 


000 


1.346 


120 


I. 179 


3';o 


781 


080 


601 


4SO 


799 


800 


1.036 


9SO 


I. 131 


600 



.563. 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



398.299 
391.682 
460.097 
295.502 
390.099 
553.672 
495.426 
543. 710 
465. 700 
539.819 
703, 020 
778.716 
867.310 
771.617 
.088,429 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



1 Strait of Mackinaw not included. 

6 Planted from Mackinaw City in waters adjacent to those of the north shore. 

Table 4.— Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in 
Michigan Waters of Lake Michigan from Little Point Au Sable to the Indiana Border 
for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive." 



1892 8 5 

1893 - 1 6.0 

1894 14. 5 

1895 2,0 

1896 _ 2.0 

1897 - 6,0 

1898- 

1899 -- 

1 900 

190I-- - --[ 64.0 

1902 L. 

1903 _ 

1904 

190S - 

1906 _ _ 



Catch, in 
pounds. 



.875 
.650 
.850 
.783 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



497.371 
600,828 
424.482 
368.447 
390.638 
237,662 
261. 736 
306,860 
506,921 
560,291 
624,520 
598,690 
691, 260 
858,691 
832,051 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



.078 
. 209 
.136 



a From the United States Fish Commission Report for 1887. p. 
538,817 pounds. 

& At Michigan City, Ind., very near the Michigan boimdary line. 



we find that the catch in this area i 



664 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



Table 5. — Annual Catch and Plant op Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in 
Michigan Waters of Lake Michigan from Manistee to Frankfort " for each of the 
Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 



1893- 
1894- 
189s- 
1896. 
1897- 



1903- 
1904- 
190S- 
1906- 



Total gill and Catch 

pound nets, in pounds per 

fathoms. net-fathom. 



162. 706 
151 090 
138.483 
ISO. 447 
181.966 
80. 583 
138.552 
134. 490 
187. SSI 



find the catch at Frankfort alone for 



a From United States Fish Commission Report for 1887, p. 84, 
885,504 pounds. 

Table 6. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in Michigan 
Waters of Lake Huron from Mackinaw City to Port Huron for each of the Years 1892 to 
1906, Inclusive. 



Total gill an 

pound nets, i 

fathoms. 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
190S 
1906 



19,850 
23.440 
5, 600 



555.35° 
535. 750 
396.350 
357,317 
659.234 
S2S.860 
387.740 
482,980 
403.020 
600, 620 
639, 600 
722,560 
618,960 
329. 260 
265.320 



528,566 
505.497 
657. 2S5 
347. 799 
435.345 
537.704 
622. 686 
766. 278 
873.896 
843.691 
.050,667 
,056,170 
.235.910 



Table 7. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in Canadian 
Waters of Lake Huron, Including North Channel, for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, 
Inclusive." 



Catch, 


n 


pound 




2.639 


156 


2,278 


300 


1.504 


436 


771 


475 


I. 091 


950 


740 


041 


904 




864 


240 


1.255 


075 


935 


00^ 


I, 181 


?6X 


831 


610 


1,578 


790 



Total gill and 


Catch 


in 


fiound nets, in 


pounds 


per 


fathoms. 


net-fathom. 


391.067 




6.74 


679.395 




3-3S 


741. 135 




2.03 


535.670 




3.44 


598,380 




J. 82 


240,525 




3.08 


683.480 




1 32 


335. 772 




= •57 


554. 045 




2.26 


471. 732 




t.97 


868.137 




I., 6 


659.835 




1.26 


650.630 






824.610 




.89 


709.440 




1.32 



I893-- 

1894 - --- 

1895 

1896 - 

1897 

1898 - 

1899 - 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

I90S -- 

1906 - 

a Exclusive of Georgian Bay. 

t> In the absence of exact information for the years 
the same as in the years immediately following and ar 



ind 1893 the plants of these years are assumed to have been 
ntered here. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



665 



Table 8. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in the 
Waters of Georgian Bay for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 



Total gill and Catch, in 

pound nets, in | pounds per 

fathoms. i net-fathom 



19QJ- 

1904- 
190S- 
1906. 



620.650 
528,300 
653, 400 
615,071 
419. 450 
326.950 
361,030 
844.100 
441.650 
443.550 
486. 190 



Table q.^Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in Canadian 
Waters of Lake Erie for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 



311.950 
256, 240 
'53.033 
148,010 
126,300 
270, 290 
245.365 
431.022 
401,425 
523.365 
449.886 
303, 280 
360. 800 
304, 400 
359, 100 



32,850 
49.540 
73.660 
84.410 
86. 990 
92.360 
90, 480 
107, 910 
191.915 
141.460 
133.411 
169. 250 



1893 the plants of these years are assumed to have been 
in the years immediately following, and the remaining 



o Includes Detroit River. 

ft In the absence of exact information for the years 1892 ai 
the same for Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, and Lake Ontario : 
plant was assigned to Lake Erie. 

Table lo. — Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length of Nets in Use in Cana- 
dian Waters of Lake Ontario for each of the Years 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 



Total gill and 

pound nets, in 

fathoms. 



Catch, in 
pounds per 
net-fathom. 



1893- 
1894- 
1895- 
1896- 
1897. 
1898. 
1899- 
1900- 
1901- 
1.902 _ 
1903- 
1904- 
190S- 
1906- 



, 800. 
,800, 
,800, 
.800. 



489, 900 
369,570 
299.930 
126.650 



96.980 
190, 650 
472, 770 
354.000 



144.775 
126. 730 
158,70s 
173.645 
255. 100 
273.670 
233.810 
168,155 
231.40s 
156,480 
153,920 
186,352 

221,512 
249.820 
258.792 



" In the absence of exact information for the plants in 1892 and 1893 it has been assumed to be the same from each 
hatchery as in the years immediately following, the total plant remaining constant, and is so set down here. 



666 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

An examination of any one of these tables shows great fluctuation in the 
annual catch of whitefish, which may increase or diminish nearly 50 per cent 
between one season and the next, and in some cases varies 300 per cent between 
successive years. The cause of these annual fluctuations is to be found, no doubt, 
in part in the weather conditions, which permit almost continuous fishing in one 
season while they may greatly interfere with the fishing in the succeeding season. 
But these fluctuations may also be due in part to some feature of the habits of the 
whitefish themselves which we do not at all understand. It would be possible, by 
terminating almost any one of these tables at a suitable point, to convey the 
impression that there has been a very great falling off in the catch of whitefish in 
any one of the lakes. Thus if table 2 should terminate with the year 1902 it 
would show apparently a steady decrease in the catch of whitefish in the Canadian 
waters of Lake Superior and a like impression may be gained with respect to any 
other one of the lakes by terminating the table at the appropriate year. 

DISCUSSION OF AVERAGE CATCH AND PLANT FOR CERTAIN AREAS. 

It is evident from an examination of tables i to 10 that no conclusion of value 
is to be reached by comparing the whitefish production of the Great Lakes for 
individual years. The annual fluctuations, whatever may be their cause, 
vitiate any conclusions that maybe drawn from such comparisons. It is further 
evident that any comparisons should take into account the relative whitefish 
areas of the lakes compared, and should consider both the catch and the plant 
with reference to these areas. 

In tables 11 to 18 an attempt has been made to avoid the errors just men- 
tioned by comparing the average catch for the three five-year periods from 1892 
to 1906, inclusive. In the first column is entered the average annual catch in 
pounds for each of these five-year periods. In the second column is given the 
average catch per square mile of whitefish area, while in the third column is 
stated the average catch per fathom of net used. In the same tables are given 
the plants of whitefish; the annual average for each five-year period, the average 
per square mile of whitefish area, and the average per pound of whitefish caught. 
The same tables give the average annual number of fathoms of nets used for each 
period and the fathoms of nets per square mile. By nets is to be here again under- 
stood all nets used in the areas in question, not merely nets in which whitefish 
were taken. Not much value can therefore be attached to that part of the table 
which deals with nets. 

Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Superior. — In table x i the data for 
the Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Superior are brought together for 
comparison. The Michigan whitefish area of 2,400 square miles extends from 
the St. Marys River westward to the Wisconsin boundary fine, as indicated on 
the map of Lake Superior. It does not include Isle Royal for the reason that 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



667 



this offers an isolated whitefish area unconnected with that to the north or 
south of it, and for the further reason that the statistical returns from this 
remote area show such extraordinary fluctuations in catch, plant, and 
amount of nets used as to make them of little value. The Canadian side of 
Lake Superior shows a whitefish area of 3,600 square miles, stretching from the 
St. Marys River westward to the Minnesota boundary. On the Michigan shore 
there has been a very large annual plant of whitefish fry, averaging 1 1 ,000,000 
in the first period, 22,000,000 in the second period, and 15,000,000 in the third 
period. This amounts to about 5,000 fry planted annually per square mile of 
area during the first period, 9,000 during the second period, and 6,000 during the 
third period. For each pound of fish taken out there has been planted during the 
first period an annual average of 5 fry, during the second period an annual aver- 
age of about 19, and during the third period an annual average of more than 12. 
These values would be greatly increased if they were made to include the Wis- 
consin plants, which are indicated by the footnote in table 2, but not included 
in the calculations in table 1 1 . 



Table ii. — Comparison of the Average Catches and Plants op Whitefish in Michigan and 
Canadian Waters of Lake Superior for the Three Five- Year Periods 1892 to 1906, 
Inclusive." 

Michigan waters, wkilefisk area 2,400 square miles. 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Pounds 
per net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per Fry per 
square pound 
mile. caught. 

i 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 


1892-1896 

1897-1901 

1902-1906 


r'.j69!ooo 
1,193.000 


881 
487 
497 


3 22 
1.58 
■ 91 


ii.oS7.ooo 
21,858.000 
IS, 268,900 


4.607 S- 2 
9.178 18.8 
6.362 12.8 


703.300 

750.300 

I. 231.300 


293 
312 
S13 



Canadian waters, whitefish area 3,600 square miles. 



If we compare the catches over this area for the three periods, w-e see that 
while there was a decline of nearly a million pounds in the annual average 
between the first period and the second, there was a slight increase in the third 
period as compared with the second. The whitefish production of this area is 
therefore not decreasing; it is increasing. This increase has been accompanied 
by a considerable increase in the length of nets used, but as will appear in 
another place in this paper there seems to be good reason for the belief that an 
increase in the length of nets used is not sufficient to account for the increase 



668 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OK FISHERIES. 

in the catch under the conditions existing in the Great Lakes. Furthermore, 
we have no reason to beheve that the additional nets were used for whitefish. 

If we turn now to the Canadian area of Lake Superior as shown in table 
II we see that there was no plant of whitefish fry during the first and third 
periods and during the second period a plant averaging but 700,000 annually, 
194 per square mile, or but little over one fry per pound of fish. This plant 
was all made at a single locality — Port Arthur — and during the two years 1 899 and 
1900. The catch of whitefish in this Canadian area decreased from the first to 
the second period in about the same proportion. as the catch on the American 
side and it continued to decrease notably in the third period. This decrease 
took place on the Canadian side while an increase was in progress on the Ameri- 
can side, and it took place in spite of the fact that the length of nets in use on 
the Canadian side was but from one-third to one-fifth that on the American 
side. During the third period the fishermen on the American side were fishing 
nearly ten times the length of nets per square mile that their Canadian brothers 
were permitted to use and were enjoying an increase in the average annual 
catch of whitefish while the Canadian fishermen were suffering from a decrease 
in the average annual catch. 

Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Huron. — The data for these waters 
are given in tables 12 and 13. The Michigan waters are those of the west 
shore of Lake Huron from Mackinaw City to Port Huron. The Canadian 
waters are, in table 12, the eastern shore of Lake Huron, including the North 
Channel, and in table 13 the Georgian Bay. We see that on the Michigan side 
there has been a plant of from about 18,000,000 fry annually in the first period 
to nearly 30,000,000 annually in the third period. This is a plant averaging 
from 5,500 to 9,000 fry per square mile of whitefish area. In other words, 
from 36 to 58 fry have been placed in these waters for every pound of 
whitefish taken from them. The catch of whitefish has remained practi- 
cally constant, but has increased somewhat in the last period as compared 
to the second. On the Canadian side of Lake Huron there has been a com- 
paratively light plant of whitefish fry in each of the three periods, less than 
one-sixth that on the Michigan side. The catch of whitefish fell off very much 
in the second period as compared with the first, but recovered somewhat during 
the third period. If we compare the Michigan waters of Lake Huron with 
Georgian Bay (Canadian) we find that in Georgian Bay there has been com- 
paratively little planting of whitefish and this confined to the second period. 
It averages but 152 fry per square mile of whitefish area and but i fry per 
pound of whitefish caught. The catch of whitefish has fallen off more than 
two-thirds in the second period as compared with the first and has diminished 
still further, though slightly, in the third period. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



669 



Table 12. — Comparison of the Average Catches and Plants of Whitefish in Michigan and 
Canadian Waters of Lake Huron for the Three Five-Year Periods 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 

Michigan viaters, whitefish area 3,200 square miksA 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Pounds 
per net- 
fathoms. 


Total 

fry. 


Fry per 
square 
mile. 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 


1892-1896 

1897-1901 -- 

1902-1906 


SOI, 000 
480.000 
51S.000 


IS8 
148 
IS9 


0.99 

■ 79 
.58 


17.958.000 
20.258.000 
29.400.000 


S. 559 
6 271 
9. lot 


36 
S8 


525.400 
847.100 
991. 700 


164 
264 
309 



Canadian waters, whitefish area 3,000 sqiuire miles, b 



i892-i896_ 
1896-1901- 
1902-1906- 



5S2 


3.07 


313 


2. 24 


350 


I. 45 



a From Mackinaw City to Port Huron. 

6 North Channel and Lake Huron exclusive of Georgian Bay. 

Table 13. — Showing the Average Catches and Plants of Whitefish in Georgian Bay Waters 
for the Three Five-Year Periods 1892-1906, Inclusive. 

Whitefish area 2,700 square miles. 





Catch. 1 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Pounds 
per net- 
fathom. 


Total 
fry. 


Fry per Fry per 
square pound 
mile. caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 


1892-1896 


1.535.000 
4SO.OOO 
423.000 


568 19.3 
166 .92 
156 .88 






617.300 

50S. 600 
515.300 




1897-1901 -. 


410.000 


152 I 


188 
191 













We appear to have disclosed in Lakes Superior and Huron a relation between 
the plant of whitefish fry and the catch of a subsequent period of such a sort that 
when the plant has been considerable the catch has either been maintained or 
has increased, while when the plant has been small the catch has usually dimin- 
ished. There are no statistics available which enable us to compare for long 
periods the data for the two sides of the same lake, except those for Lakes 
Superior and Huron, but it will be of interest to compare with these two lakes 
Lakes Erie and Ontario and parts of Lake Michigan. 

Canadian waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. — The only statistics avail- 
able for continuous periods are those of the Canadian sides of these lakes, but 
these are of especial interest, because they enable us to compare Canadian waters 
in which there has been relatively heavy planting of whitefish fry with those in 
which the plant has been light. The Canadian whitefish areas of Lake Erie, 



670 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



including both the eastern and western portions, are 2,100 square miles. For 
each of the five-year periods considered the plant on this area has been enor- 
mous — from about 28,000 to about 30,000 fry per square mile of whitefish area, 
or from 139 to 230 fry per pound of whitefish caught. At the same time the 
catch has increased, nearly doubling in the second period as compared with the 
first and then remaining practically constant during the third period. 

In Lake Ontario the area of whitefish ground on the Canadian side has been 
estimated at 1,400 square miles. The plant per square mile has been about 
one-tenth that in Lake Erie, while the catch has diminished appreciably, though 
not greatly. 

T.-^BLE 14. — Showing the Average Catches and Plants of Whitefish in Canadian Waters op 
Lakes Erie and Ontario for the Three Five- Year Periods 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 

Lake Erie, whitefish area z,ioo square miles. 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Pounds 
per net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per 
square 
mile. 


Fry per 
poimd 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 


J892-1896- 

1897-1901 

1902-1906 


199.000 
354. 000 
355. 000 


94 
168 
169 


3- 98 
3.08 
1.87 


45.900,000 
60. 500. 000 


2I.8S7 
28,857 
29.523 


230 
171 
I7S 


65.500 
124, 800 


31 
59 
98 







Lake Ontario, -whitefish area 1,400 square miles. 








1892-1896 

1897-1901 

1902-1906 


291.000 
245.000 
238.000 


207 

175 
170 


I. 91 
1-15 


3, 600.000 


3,000 
3.443 
2.SVI 


14 
19 
'S 


171. 800 
212. 700 


152 
153 



Unfortunately, we have no statistics of the catch of whitefish for the Ameri- 
can side of either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario for any continuous period of years, 
so we are unable to make comparisons with the Canadian side. In table 22 
there is shown the annual catch and plant in the whole of these lakes for the 
years 1899 and 1903, the only years for which statistics are available for the 
catch in which the true whitefish is separated from related forms in American 
waters. 

The statistics of the catch need not detain us here, but those of the plant 
are interesting since they show that for the first of these years the total plant in 
Lake Erie from all sources, Canadian and American, was about 197,000,000 fry, 
while the plant in Lake Ontario for the same year was less than one-tenth as 
great. In 1903 the plant in Lake Erie was still nearly four times that in Lake 
Ontario. Not only is there this very great difference in the plant in these two 
lakes, a difference which exists in other years also, but it is extremely probable 
that the Lake Erie plant on the American side affects the catch on the Canadian 
side. The whitefish area of Lake Erie is practically continuous for the eastern 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 67 1 

part of the lake and continuous in a nearly separate area for the western part 
of the lake. Any plants therefore on either side of the lake might well produce 
fish that would make their way to the opposite shore. In interpreting table 14 
it is therefore to be taken into account that the plant affecting the Canadian 
catch is probably much greater than that entered in the table and would prob- 
ably be more correctly represented by values similar to those entered in table 18. 
On the other hand, both the actual and the effective plants in Lake Ontario are 
very much less than in Lake Erie. We see thus in the Canadian waters of Lake 
Erie a very great increase in the production of whitefish correlated with very 
large plants of fry. In Lake Ontario we see a reduction in whitefish production 
correlated with a moderate plant of fry, a plant which is, for unit area, about 
half that of the Michigan waters of Lake Superior for the same periods. 

Restricted areas of Lake Michigan. — In tables 15 and 16 there are brought 
together the data of catch, plant, and nets used in certain restricted areas of 
Lake Michigan. The data for the catch are all taken from the records of the 
Michigan Fish Commission, while those of the plant are published in the reports 
of the Michigan Fish Commission and the United States Bureau of Fisheries. 

The areas selected are as follows: 

(i) An area designated in table 15 as the "north shore" of Lake Mich- 
igan comprises the whitefish grounds from the Strait of Mackinaw westward to 
the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary in Lake Michigan. The eastern limit of this 
area is therefore well defined, but at its western limit it is broadly continuous with 
the waters of the State of Wisconsin. It contains 800 square miles, as shown on 
the map of Lake Michigan. The plant of whitefish fry in this area in the three 
successive five-year periods has been from 7,000 to 9,000 per square mile and 
from 5 to 9 per pound of fish caught. At the same time the catch in round 
numbers has been, in successive periods, 800,000, 950,000, 1,200,000. Here we 
have again a greatly increased catch correlated with a large and intensive plant. 

(2) An area designated in the table as the "southeast" Michigan shore, 
comprises the whitefish grounds from Little Point Au Sable south to the Indiana- 
Michigan boundary. At its northern limit this area is nearly separated from 
the whitefish area to the north of it, but at its southern end it is broadly contin- 
uous with the Indiana waters of Lake Michigan. These waters, have, however, 
for a long time yielded very few whitefish, so that the area in question may 
be regarded as practically limited by barren waters at its lower end. Its area 
is 300 square miles. For the first period this area received a plant of 22,000 
fry annually per square mile, an average of 125 per pound of fish caught. In 
the second period the plant was reduced to an average of about 7,000 annually, 
or 68 per pound of fish caught. The latter averages are based on a total which 
includes a plant of 4,000,000 made in 1901 at Michigan City, Ind., just beyond the 
Michigan border. If this plant be excluded the figures for the second period are 
reduced 40 per cent. Here again we have a very large increase in the catch 



672 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



correlated with a very large and intensive plant. The catch of the third period 
exceeds that of the second more than fivefold. The number of whitefish 
appears, however, not to have increased in the period immediately followi; g 
the greatest activity in planting, for while the plant of the first period was very 
great the catch of the succeeding period showed a decrease to little more than 
one-half that of the preceding period. This is possibly to be explained by the 
fact that in the nineties this area was considered to be nearly depleted of white- 
fish, and fishing for them was prosecuted with much less vigor than before. 
The number of fathoms of nets in use fell off, and it is probable that the nets set 
for whitefish fell off still more. It seems, therefore, probable that the whitefish 
may have begun to increase during the second period, but that this fact was not 
known to the fishermen until well into the third period. In other words, it is 
probable that the catch did not increase until some years after the whitefish 
themselves had increased. A glance at table 4 shows that this increase in the 
catch became noticeable in 1903. 

Table 15. — Showing the Average Catches and Plants of Whitefish in Michigan Waters of 
Lake Michigan (the North Shore and the Southeast Shore) for the Three FivE-Year 
Periods 1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 

North shore, wki'^fisk area Soo sqttare miles. "■ 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds per 

square 
mile. 


Pounds per 
net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per 
square 
mile. 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 
per square 


1892-1896 

1897-1901 

1902-1906 


791.000 
942. 000 


988 
I. 177 
1.477 


1.99 
1.83 
1-39 


7. 177.000 
5.908.000 
5. 800. 000 


8.971 
7.38s 
7.250 


9 
6 


3S7.100 
519, 600 
841. Soo 


459 

649 

1.053 



Soutlieasl Michigan stwre, whiiefish area joo square miles. b 



170 




96 


.081 


440 


.165 



o North shore, from the Wisconsin border to the Strait of Mackinaw (excluding the Strait of Mackinaw), 
fc Southeast shore, from Little Point Au Sable south to the Indiana border. 

(3) The Manistee-Frankfort area is an apparently isolated area of 90 square 
miles lying off the cities of those names. The data for this area are shown in 
table 16 (for annual data see table 5). Here we have a plant of fry which for 
the area is enormous, nearly 90,000 per square mile in the first period and nearly 
60,000 per square mile during the second period. There was no plant during 
the third period. The catch has risen during the fifteen years from 128,000 
pounds per square mile in the first period to 152,000 in the second and 211,000 
in the third. Here again we have a correlation of heavy planting with increased 
yield of fish. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



673 



Table 16. — Showing the Average Catches and Plants of Whitefish in Michigan Waters of 
Lake Michigan from Manistee to Frankfort, Inclusive, for the Three Five-Year Periods 
1892 to 1906, Inclusive. 

Whitefish area, go sqtiare miles. 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Years. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds per 

square 
mile. 


Poimds per 
net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per 

square 
mile. 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 


1892-1896 ' 128,000 

1897-1901 152,000 

9 9 


1,422 
1,688 
2.344 


- 0.80 
I. 16 
.88 


7,900.000 
5.300.000 


87.777 
58.888 


62 

35 


156, 900 
138.900 
242,900 


1.743 
1.543 
2.498 













PRODUCTION COMPARED WITH INTENSITY OF PLANT. 

The data that have been presented seem to show that wherever, whether 
in American or Canadian waters, there has been a large plant of whitefish fry 
per unit area (20,000 in at least one period) this is correlated with a considerably 
increased average yield of adult fish per unit area in one or another period (Man- 
istee and Frankfort and southeast Michigan areas of Lake Michigan, Canadian 
waters of Lake Erie) ; wherever there has been a moderate plant of fry per unit 
area (5,000 to 10,000 per square mile) this is correlated with a moderately 
increased yield of adult fish per unit area in one or another period or by a practically 
stationary yield (north shore of Lake Michigan, Michigan waters of Lake Huron 
from Port Huron to Mackinaw City, Michigan waters of Lake Superior) ; wher- 
ever there has been a small plant of whitefish fry per unit area (less than about 
3,500) or no plant, this is correlated with a diminished yield of adult fish per 
imit area (Canadian waters of Lakes Superior, Ontario, and Huron and Georgian 
Bay, except for a slight increase in Lake Huron from second to third period). 

CONCLUSIONS AS TO EFFECT OF PROPAGATION. 

The result reached in this section is expressed in another form in tables 1 7 
and 17a, in which the whitefish areas already discussed are arranged in the 
order of the intensity of the plant made on them per unit area. Arranged in 
this way the series falls into three groups. The first, including the Manistee 
and Frankfort area, the southeast Michigan shore, and the Canadian waters 
of Lake Erie, comprises areas which have in at least one of the three periods 
received plants of at least 20,000 per square mile. The increase or decrease 
in the catch of each area of this group is shown for the second and third 
periods in the right-hand column in percentages of the catch compared with 
that of the preceding period. Positive values indicate an increase in catch, 
negative values a decrease. These percentages are of considerable amoimt and 
are positive in every case but one ; the catch for the southeast Michigan shore is 
less for the second period than for the first (43 per cent) , but it increases again 
enormously in passing from the second period to the third (350 per cent). 

B. B. F. 1908—43 



674 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



The second group of areas as arranged in table 1 7 includes the north shore 
of Lake Michigan, the west shore of Lake Huron from Mackinaw City to Port 
Huron, and the south shore (Michigan waters) of Lake Superior. In this group 
the intensity of the plant of whitefish fry per square mile varies from about 
5,000 to about 10,000. But two negative percentages appear in the table 
opposite these areas; these are both in passing from the first to the second 
period, and both are reversed in passing from the second to the third period, 
where they become positive. 

The third group of areas includes the north shore of Lake Ontario, the 
east or Canadian shore of Lake Hm-on, the north shore of Lake Superior, and 
Georgian Bay. The plant per unit area has been largest in Lake Ontario, but 
has not there exceeded 3,600 per square mile. It diminishes progressively in 
the order in which the areas are named above, and becomes practically nothing 
in Lake Superior and Georgian Bay. The percentage column shows no positive 
value, while the sum of the negative values is very large. 

T.'iBLE 17. — Showing the Relationship of the Average Plant of Whitefish Fry per Unit Area 
IN Cert.iin Waters of the Great Lakes, to the Average Catch in the same Unit Area for 
Three Five-year Periods. 



Plant Der i Catch, pounds, 

riant per square 

^'•"f^J.r ^ '■, milVcto nearest 

nearest 100). * •. 



Per cent of in- 
crease (plus 
values) or de- 
crease (minus 
values) of each 
period over the 
preceding 
period. 



{Manistee and Frankfort 
Lake Erie (Canadian) 
Lake Michigan (southeast shore) _ 

I [Lake Michigan (north shore) 

I- Lake Huron (west shore) 

iLake Superior (south shore) 

fLake Ontario (north shore) 
Lake Huron (east shore) 
Lake Superior (north shore) 
Georgian Bay 



{Manistee and Frankfort 
Lake Erie (Canadian) ^ 
Lake Michigan (southeast shore) . 
{Lake Michigan (north shore) 
Lake Huron (west shore) 
Lake Superior (south shore) 

{Lake Ontario (north shore) 
Lake Huron (east shore) 
Lake Superior (north shore) 
Georgian Bay 




[Manistee and Frankfort 

KLake Erie (Canadian) 

MLake Michigan (southeast shore)- 

Lake Michigan (north shore) 

I^Lake Huron (west shore) 

j I Lake Superior (south shore) 

'[Lake Ontario (north shore) 

; I Lake Huron (east shore) 

1 1 Lake Superior (north shore) 

[Georgian Bay 




THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



675 



Table 170. — Showing the Relation Between the Average Plant of Whitefish Frv per Square 
Mile per Period and per Pound Caught per Period to the Average Percentage op Increase 
OR Decrease in the Catch of each Period over the Preceding Period. 



Manistee and Frankfort 

I Lake Erie (Canadian ) 

iLake Michigan (southeast shore) _ 

{Lake Michigan (north shore) 
Lake Huron {west shore) 
Lake Superior (south shore) . 

{Lake Ontario (north shore) 
Lake Huron (east shore) 
Lake Superior (north Shore) 
Georgian Bay 



Average plant 

per square 

mile per area 

for 6ve-year 

periods. 



Average plant 
per pound 
caught per 
area for five- 
year periods. 



Average per- 
centage of in- 
crease ( -I- ) or 
decrease ( — ) 
of period 2 
(1897-1901) 
over period i 



' -1-72.0 
+ 07 



^ If we exclude Lake Michigan, southeast shore, on account of the phenomenal i 
period, this value becomes -f-31, but there appears to be no valid reason for such exclusion. 



of 350 per cent in the third 



In table 17a is shown the relation of the average intensity of plant of 
each of the three groups of areas to the average catch in the same areas. The 
first column contains the average of the plant for the areas of each group for the 
three periods expressed in fry per square mile and the second column contains a 
like average expressed in fry per pound of whitefish caught. Thus the value 
28,000 in the first column of table 17a is obtained by adding all the numbers 
in the first column of table 1 7 opposite the areas of the first group and dividing 
the sum by 9, and the remaining values in columns one and two of table 17a 
are obtained in like manner. The percentages in the third column of table 
17a are obtained by adding for each group of areas the percentages given in 
the third column of table 1 7 and dividing by 6 in the case of groups i and 2 
and by 8 in the case of group 3. 

It thus appears that, on the average, a plant of approximately 30,000 per 
square mile of whitefish area or of 100 per pound of whitefish caught is cor- 
related, under existing conditions, with an increase of 72 percent in the catch; a 
plant of 10,000 arid 32 with a practically stationary whitefish product; a plant 
of 2,200 and II with a decrease of 26 per cent in the whitefish product. This 
appears to the writer to amount to a mathematical demonstration of the 
efficacy of the planting of whitefish and to afford a measure of the intensity of 
plant necessary. This measure applies, of course, to present conditions; as the 
whitefish production increases it is possible that a plant of less than 100 per 
pound will suffice to maintain the fisheries. 

In table 22 is given the total plant and catch for the Great Lakes and from 
this appears the average intensity of plant for 1903, the last year for which data 
are available for the catch. The intensity of the plant per pound caught is here 



676 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

shown to be approximately 50. It appears therefore that the plant should be 
annually at least twice what it was in 1903. If the writer remembers correctly 
the cost of producing whitefish fry has been in the recent experience of the 
United States Bureau of Fisheries about two cents per i ,000 in Michigan. At 
this rate the cost of planting per pound of fish caught would be about 2 mills. 

This correlation of an increased output of whitefish with a large intensive 
plant of fry and of a reduced production of whitefish or a stationary product 
with a small or difi'use plant of fry holds good in waters which are fished under 
the same restrictive legislative enactments. The Canadian waters of Lake 
Erie fall at one end of the abov^e series, while the Canadian waters of Lake 
Superior fall at the other end of the series. These waters are fished under the 
same laws, dominion and provincial. The differences in their output can not 
therefore be referred to differences in legislative control. The Manistee-Frank- 
fort area and the Michigan southeast-shore area are fished under American non- 
restrictive enactments, while the Canadian waters of Lake Erie are fished 
under the restrictive laws already referred to, and yet both, having received 
large and intensive plants of whitefish fry, have yielded increased returns in 
spite of differences in the fishing regulations. 

The writer is forced to conclude that the increased production of white- 
fish in certain areas of the Great Lakes for the averages of five-year periods 
is due not to legislative enactment, but to the liberal and intensive planting 
of fry. 

EFFECT OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT ON WHITEFISH PRODUCTION. 

An analysis of the fisheries regulations of the Dominion of Canada, the 
Province of Ontario, and the State of Michigan, under which the fisheries were 
carried on, the data of which are presented in this paper, can not be here under- 
taken. An act of the Michigan legislature of 1897 provides that, with certain 
minor exceptions, "it shall be unlawful for an}- person to fish with any kind 
of net whatever in the waters of this State from the thirtieth day of October to 
the fifteenth day of December." The fisheries regulations of the Dominion of 
Canada provide a close season for whitefish from November i to November 30, 
inclusive, in the Province of Ontario, but certain waters of Lake Erie and the 
Detroit River and Lake St. Clair are excepted by recent enactment. So far as 
the close season is concerned the Michigan and Canadian regulations are in 
essential agreement. They both aim to protect the whitefish during the spawn- 
ing season. It is quite possible that the improvement in the whitefish fisheries 
in Michigan waters in recent years, as shown in the tables in this paper, is in 
part due to the close season which has been in force for about half of the period 
covered by these tables. That the improvement is not due wholly to the close 
season is clear when we remember that the Canadian whitefish catch has 
declined in many regions where a close season is enforced. The close season as 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



677 



it now is limited is therefore not in itself sufficient to bring about an improve- 
ment of the fishery for whitefish. 

Under the regulations of the Dominion of Canada fisheries officers are 
empowered to regulate the distances between nets, and if the writer under- 
stands these regulations, the fishing grounds are leased and the fishermen 
licensed. The result of this system is that a much smaller number of nets, or a 
much shorter total length of nets, is in use in the Canadian waters of the Great 
Lakes than in the American waters. In tables 18 and 19 are shown the data for 
the plant and catch of whitefish for the Canadian and American waters of Lakes 
Erie and Ontario for the only years for which American statistics are available 
in which it is possible to discriminate the true whitefish from related forms. 
From these it appears that the total length of gill and pound nets in use in the 
American waters of Lake Erie was in 1893 about twenty times that in use in 
Canadian waters, although the Canadian and American waters have approxi- 
mately the same area. The Canadian nets in that year took about four times 
as many pounds of fish per fathom of length as the American nets. In 1899 the 
American nets are still of about twenty times the length in total of the Canadian 
nets, which are taking between four and five times the weight of fish per fathom. 
In 1903 the American nets still exceed the Canadian more than ten times, and 
the Canadian are taking more than ten times the weight of fish per fathom. In 
this year the weight of whitefish taken in the waters of the two countries is the 
same. An examination of tables 1 1 and 1 2 shows that in Lakes Superior and 
Huron the American nets exceed the Canadian in total length and the Canadian 
nets exceed the American in catch per net fathom. The latter statement is true 
only if we assume that the whitefisli are taken in the waters of both countries in 
the same proportion to other fish. 

Table 18. — Comparison of the Annual Catches and Plants of Whitefish and Total Length 
OF Nets in Use in United States and Canadian Waters of Lake Erie for the Three Years 
1893, 1899, 1903. . 

Canada, north shore, whitefish area 2,100 square miles. 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Year. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Poimds 
per net- 
fathom. 


Fry per 
Total fry. square 
mile. 

1 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 

226 
139 
204 


i*„»„i Fathoms 

- --- ,-t^r" 


1893 


256.000 
303.000 


205 
144 


S. 17 58. 000. 000 27.619 
3.99 , 60.000.000 28.571 





















United States, south shore, whitefish area 2,000 square miles. 



1893- 
1899- 
1903- 



1.292.000 


646 


1-3 


2.066.000 


1.033 




303.000 


152 


. 16 



22.570. 
104.930. 
90. 961. 



11.28s 

52.465 
45.480 


18 

so 
30 


988,900 
2.325.200 
1,816.300 



48s 
,164 

908 



678 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



Table 19. — Comparison op the Annual Catch and Plants op Whitefish and Total Length op 
Nets in Use in United States and Canadian Waters of Lake Ontario for the Years 1899 
AND 1903. 

Canadian waters^ whitefish area 1,400 square miles. 





Catch. 


Plant. 


Nets. 


Year. ■ 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per square 

mile. 


Pounds 
per net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per 
square 
mile. 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per square 

mile. 




359. 000 
97.000 


185 
69 


I. 5 

■ 52 


5,050.000 
3.000.000 


3.607 
2. 142 


19 

30 


168.200 
186,400 













United States waters, whitefish area 800 square miles. 



It seems clear to the writer that Umitation of the length of the nets in use 
has not resulted in an improvement of the whitefish production. The white- 
fish catch in Canadian waters of Lake Erie has diminished and again increased 
(see table 9), although the length of nets has remained but a fraction of that 
on the American side of the same lake. The same thing has happened on the 
American side of the lake, if we may judge by the only available statistics, 
those of the State of Pennsylvania, which are given in table 21. 

In table 20 are shown the lengths of nets used in American and Canadian 
waters of Lake Erie, as compared to the total catch of all fish in the same 
waters. From this it appears that when all fish are considered the Canadian 
nets took in 1899 about four times as many pounds of fish per fathom as the 
American nets, while in 1903 they took about three times as many pounds. 

Table 20. — Comparing in Round Numbers the Total Length of Gill and Pound Nets and 
the Catch of All Fish in Canadian and American Waters of Lake Erie for the Years 
1899 and 1903. 





Canadian waters. 


American waters. 


Year. 


Nets. 


Catch. 


Catch per 
net- 
fathom. 


Nets. 


Catch. 


Catch per 

net- 
fathom. 




Fatkoms. 
107.900 
169,300 


Pounds. 
10, 063. 000 
5,409,000 


Pounds. 
93 

32 


Fathoms. 
2.325.200 
I. 8i6. 300 


Pounds. 
58,394.000 
23,189.000 


Pounds. 

25 











THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 



679 



Table 21. — Showing in Pounds the Annual, Catch of Whitefish in the Pennsvxvania Waters 
OF Lake Erie for the Years 1892-1906, Inclusive; from the Records of the Pennsylvania 
Fishery Commission. 



Year. 


Pounds. 


Year. 


Pounds. 


1892 






57.840,000 
44.560,000 
19.836,000 
39, 200,000 
34, 489.000 
36.468,000 




19, 800 
42.000 
43 . 000 


1° 








1895 




1896 






1Q06 















Table 22. — Showing the Annual Catch and Plant of Whitefish and Total Length op Nets 
Used in the Great Lakes, Exclusive of Lake St. Clair, for the Years 1899 and 1903. 

Lake Michigan, whitefish area 2,600 square miles. 



Year. 


Total 
pounds. 


Pounds 

per 
square 
mile. 


Pounds 

per 

net- 
fathom. 


Total fry. 


Fry per 
square 
mile. 


Fry per 
pound 
caught. 


Total 
fathoms. 


Fathoms 

per 

square 

mile. 




I.' 973! 000 


503 
682 


.58 
■ 77 


S3.Soo.ooo 
6,000,000 


20.S77 
7.307 


35 
3 


2.60s. 600 
2,564,400 




1903 


986 



Lake Huron and North Channel, whitefish area 0,300 square mUes. 



Lake Superior, whitefish area 7,500 square miles. 



Lake Erie, whitefish area 4,100 square miles. 



609 i.o 196.930.000 48,031 78 

.30 152.961,000 37.307 



Lake Ontario, whitefish area 2,200 square miles. 



1899 . 
1903 - 



All Great Lakes,"- whitefish area 25,700 square miles. 



' Exclusive of Lake St. Clair. 



68o BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Total length of nets in use seems, therefore, not to have affected the total 
catch of whitefish. The explanation of this apparent contradiction is probably 
as follows, although this explanation is offered with much reserve: WTien fishing 
is begun in a virgin water, the catch depends necessarily on the amount of appa- 
ratus in use. As the rate of catch per unit of apparatus diminishes, which it 
invariably does, there comes a time when it ceases to be profitable to multiply 
the amount of apparatus, and as a consequence the number of units of apparatus 
ceases to grow. The relation of the amount of apparatus to the catch per unit 
of apparatus is, where no restrictions exist, a self-regulating one. The apparatus 
is sure to increase to the point where its use barely affords a profit to the user. 
The total apparatus is not in the water because required in order to catch the 
total amount of fish actually taken ; it is there rather because each fisherman hopes 
to take the fish which would otherwise fall to another. If, now, the amount of 
apparatus be diminished, the same number of fish will still be taken in the dimin- 
ished number of nets until the rate at which they are caught falls below the 
natural rate of increase of the fish, when, of course, the total catch of fish will 
increase. If these considerations are well grounded, the regulation of the number 
or length of nets per unit area does not act to preserve the fisheries unless that 
regulation proceeds to an extreme that it is not likely to reach in practice. So 
far as the preservation of the fisheries is concerned, the regulation of the length 
of nets to be used on unit area may well be left to competition, provided com- 
petition is in some way insured. These remarks do not apply, however, to 
regulation of the length or location of those nets which might impede the move- 
ments of fish during the spawning season ; they assume, rather, that the spawning 
season is a close season. 

To reduce the length of nets per unit area is, however, advantageous in 
another way, since it tends to lessen the cost of taking the fish and should 
make it possible to furnish them to the public at a less price. If fishing grounds 
are leased in such a way as to insure competition among lessees and to prevent 
the leases falling into the hands of a single lessee, and if the length of nets per- 
mitted on unit area is then restricted, the fish should come to the market at a 
lower price, for each fisherman would be compelled to take the fish at a less 
cost to himself and competition would compel him to market them at a less 
cost. This principle is commonly applied in another way by the licensing of 
hunters and sport fishermen and the limitation of the catch that they are per- 
mitted to take. Here, where pecuniary profit is not an inducement to increase 
the catch, it is not regulated by the cost of getting it. The sport fisherman 
tends to get all he can no matter at what cost, and hence it is necessary to regu- 
late the size of his catch by law in order to prevent his exhausting the supply 
of fish. In commercial fishing exhaustion does not take place, because it is not 
profitable and it is necessary to regulate the apparatus used only in order to 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 68 1 

lessen the cost of fishing. The conclusion reached in this section is that neither 
the close season nor regulation of the amount of apparatus is in itself sufficient 
to increase the output of the whitefish fisheries of the Great Lakes. The close 
season is presumably of assistance and should be preserved, since it protects 
the fish when they may be most readily taken in large numbers. The regulation 
of the length of apparatus to be employed in the whitefish fisheries has not 
resulted in preserving the fisheries, but is presumably advantageous in lessening 
the cost of operation, since it increases the number of pounds of fish taken per 
unit of net without reducing the total catch. 

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. 

1. The possible modes of increasing the production of whitefish in the 
Great Lakes are discussed and the conclusion reached that under existing con- 
ditions there are but two modes available, planting of whitefish fry and restrict- 
ive legislation. The problem is then stated to be a statistical one, that of deter- 
mining by the study of existing statistical data the effect on the whitefish catch 
of the lakes of the planting of whitefish fry and of various forms of restrictive 
legislation. It is shown that it is necessary to have statistics for a continuous 
period of years for true whitefish only both for plant and catch and under various 
legislative restrictions. The necessity of discussing average catches with refer- 
ence to unit areas of fishing ground is insisted on. Finally, it is shown that 
the necessary statistics are to be found only in the records of the Michigan 
Fish Commission and in those of the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the 
Dominion of Canada. 

2. The habits of the whitefish are discussed, with the conclusion that the 
fish is a bottom feeder, restricted in its range during nine months of the year to 
waters of very definite depth. The depths assigned by investigators to the white- 
fish are then tabulated for each of the Great Lakes, the areas showing these depths 
are charted, and the extent of these areas measured in square miles. The 
whitefish areas as thus defined are then briefly described for each lake and it is 
shown that they are not in all cases continuous areas. Evidence is then adduced 
to show that the whitefish are local in their habits, so that each part of each 
area supports its own group of fish, which are in large measure confined to the 
area, leaving it only in fall when going inshore to spawn and in spring or sum- 
mer for about two months. 

3. In studying the relation of the plant of whitefish fry to the catch it is 
found that in those lakes or parts of lakes where there has been a large and 
intensive plant of whitefish fry (30,000 per square mile) there has been a corre- 
lated increase in the catch of whitefish (72 per cent) ; in those lakes or parts of 
lakes in which there has been a moderate plant of whitefish fry (10,000 per 
square mile) there has been a slight increase in the catch of whitefish or the 



682 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

catch has remained nearly constant; in those lakes or parts of lakes in which 
there has been a small plant of whitefish fry (2,000 per square mile) or no plant, 
there has been a reduction in the catch of whitefish (26 percent). (Certain 
exceptions to this statement are also noted.) It is shown that under Canadian 
restrictive legislation the whitefish have diminished in waters where planting 
of fry has been at a minimum and have increased in waters where planting 
has been liberal; that whitefish have increased in American waters where there 
has been no restrictive legislation (or little) and have diminished in Canadian 
waters of the same lake under restrictive legislation. These increases and 
decreases are stated to be, therefore, in relation to the plant of whitefish fry 
and not to legislative control. 

4. Discussion of the effect of legislation on whitefish production leads to 
the conclusion that (a) a close season during the breeding period is probably 
advantageous to the production of whitefish, although the data at hand do not 
furnish any evidence on that score, and (b) that a practicable regulation of the 
number of nets or the length of nets to be used in unit area of the lake does 
not increase the production of whitefish, but does tend to greater economy in 
the fishing, since the same number of pounds of fish are taken with fewer nets. 

MEASURES E^COMMENDED AS MEANS OF INCREASING WHITEFISH PRODUCTION IN THE 

GREAT LAKES. 

1. It is recommended, as a result of the foregoing study, that the output 
of whitefish fry be increased as rapidly as possible, as affording the most certain 
means of increasing the whitefish production. 

2. That an intensive plant of at least 100 fry per pound of whitefish caught 
be made on depleted areas. (Lake Ontario and the southern waters of Lake 
Michigan are in need of especial attention.) 

3. That a close season be observed during the breeding season of the 
whitefish as at present, but only for such waters as are not under federal con- 
trol (see sec. 4, below). 

4. That commercial fishing with pound nets and seines be permitted 
in the waters of the Great Lakes during the breeding season of the whitefish 
wherever the state or national authorities are prepared to undertake to care 
for the spawn of the fish taken ; the fishermen to be under legal obligation to 
permit the use of the fish taken by them for the purpose of spawntaking. 

5. It is suggested that central control of the fishing operations of the 
Great Lakes is highly desirable. Whether this is possible in American waters 
through federal control or through concerted action of the states is a 
question that can not be discussed here. A central control, under which 
fishing grounds should be leased and fishermen licensed, would, if properly 
administered, reduce the cost of fishing and make possible more extended 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 683 

artificial propagation. The central authorities should have power to modify 
the fishing regulations pending legislative action. Such a system might be 
made self-supporting. 

6. The need of more exact knowledge of the habits of the whitefish and 
of all the conditions imder which it lives is very evident. In the interest of 
the fisheries these matters should be subjects of investigations to be carried 
on under federal auspices, with suitable equipment and for a long period of 
years. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
Ale.xander, a. B. 

1905. Statistics of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1903. Appendix to Report U. S. Commissioner 
of Fisheries, 1904, p. 643 to 731. Washington. 

Bean, T. H. 

1884. The whitefishes of North America. Transactions American Fish Culture Association, 13th 
annual meeting, 1884, p. 32-39. New York. 
Bower, S. 

1906. [Statistics of the Michigan fisheries, 1891-1904.] Transactions American Fisheries Society, 
1906, 35th annual meeting, p. 72-86. Appleton, Wis. 

Clark, F. N. 

1900. Methods and results in connection with the propagation of commercial fishes for the Great 
Lakes. Transactions .■American Fisheries Society, 1900, p. 88-95. Detroit, 1900. 

1902. A successful year in the artificial propagation of the whitefish. Transactions American 
Fisheries Society, 1902, p. 97-99. Appleton, Wis. 
Departme.'^t of Marine and Fisheries (Canada). 

1894 to 1907. Reports of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada 
to the Governor-General of Canada, 1894 to 1907. Ottawa, Canada. 
Downing, S. W. 

1904. The whitefish: some thoughts on its propagation and protection. Transactions of the 
American Fisheries Society, 1904, 33d annual meeting, p. 104-110. Appleton, Wis. 
Kiel, Peter 

1874. Letter to Professor Baird, Washington, D. C, printed in Miscellaneous notes and corre- 
spondence relative to the whitefish. Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1872-3, p. 79-84. Wash- 
ington. 
Knight, A. P. 

1901. The efi'ects of polluted waters on fish life. Supplement to the Thirty-second .\nnual Report 
Department Marine and Fisheries, Contributions to Canadian Biology (Studies from Marine Bio- 
logical Station of Canada), p. 9-18. 

1907. Sawdust and fish life. Thirty-ninth Annual Report Department Marine and Fisheries, 
Dominion of Canada (Ottawa). Contributions to Canadian Biology (Studies from the Marine 
Biological Station of Canada, 1902-5), p. 37-54 and 111-119. 

Kumlein, Ludwig 

1887. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States, 
sec. V, vol. I, p. 755-769. Washington. 
Michigan Fish Commission. 

1893, 1895, 1897, 1899, 1905. Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners for the years 
1892 to 1898 and 1903 and 1904. Lansing. 
Milner, James 

1874. Report on the fisheries of the Great Lakes; the result of inquiries prosecuted in 187 1 and 
1872. Report U. S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1872 and 1873, part 11, appendix a. 
Washington. 75 p. 



684 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Prince, E. E. 

1900. Water pollutions as aflfecting fisheries. Thirty-second Annual Report (for 1899) Depart- 
ment Marine and Fisheries, Dominion of Canada, p. li-lxx. Ottawa. 
1907. The local movements of fishes. Fortieth Annual Report Department Marine and Fisheries, 
Dominion of Canada, p. 57-66. Ottawa. 
Rathbun, R., and Wakeham, W. 

1897. Report of Joint Commissioners r lative to the preservation of fisheries in waters contiguous 
to the United States and Canada. House Executive Document No. 315, 54th Congress, 2d 
session. Washington. 
Smith, H. M. 

1894. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1892, p. 363-462. Wash- 
ington. 

1894. Notes on two hitherto unrecognized species of American whitefish. Bulletin U. S. Fish 
Commission, vol. xiv, 1894, p. 1-13. Washington. 

1895. Fisheries of the Great Lakes. Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1895, p. 93-103. Washington. 
1892. Report on an investigation of the fisheries of Lake Ontario. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, 

vol. X, 1890, p. 204-207. Washington. 
Smith, H. M., and Snell, M. P. 

1891. Review of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1885. Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1887. 
p. 3-333, pi. i-XLii. Washington. 
True, F. W. 

1887. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the LInited States 
sec. II, p. 631-673. Washington. 
U. S. Fish Commission (now Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor). 

1892-1897. [Plants of whitefish fry in the Great Lakes.] Reports of the Commissioner, 1892-1897, 

Washington. 
1900. Artificial propagation of the lake trout, grayling, and whitefish. Manual of Fish Culture, 
(based on the methods of the U. S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries), p. 109-120. Washington. 
Ward, H. B. 

1895. The food supply of the fish in the Great Lakes. Nebraska Literary Magazine, Lincoln, 
Nebr., November, 1895; also Twelfth Biennial Report Michigan Fish Commission, 1894-1896, 
Lansing. 

1896. A biological examination of Lake Michigan in the Traverse Bay region. Bulletin Michigan 
Fish Commission No. 6; also in Twelfth Biennial Report State Board of Fish Commissioners 
(1897) for 1894 to 1896. Lansing. 



DISCUSSION. 

Prof. Edward E. Prince. I do not wish to usurp the time of the congress unduly, 
but I will say a word or -two about the opinions expressed in the two or three papers this 
morning on the question of whitefish production in the Great Lakes. It is a matter 
which is of very, very great importance to us in Canada — in fact, I may say I am chair- 
man of a commission appointed by the Dominion government which has the protection 
of the whitefish, especially of Lakes Huron and Erie, before it. I give the writers of the 
papers this morning credit for wishing to do something practical in the matter of pre- 
serving the whitefish. I give them credit for that. At the same time L as Canadian 
commissioner of fisheries and having a good deal to do with administration of fishery 
laws, see difficulties in the suggestions which were made in the papers this morning, and 
especially I see this difficulty, that the prohibition of the capture of small whitefish, 
so long as pound nets or fish traps are allowed, is almost an impossibility — that is to sav, 
the prevention of their destruction. You may try as you will to prevent the taking of 
small whitefish, but they will be taken. You may prohibit their sale, but they will be 
handled and in some way disposed of. Therefore the question comes to this: If you 
adopt a policy which will be extremely difficult or impossible to carry out, it is better 
to pause before adopting that policy. If you adopt a closed season — and we in Canada, 
have always favored closed seasons, and hav^e to some extent carried them out (I say that, 
in justice to our official staff with which I am connected, we have tried to carry out the 
closed season in Canada) — if you adopt a closed season, which prevents any nets whatever 
being used and removes all nets from the water, that is an effective measure. You can 
do that. You can protect the fish by preventing the capture altogether — that is, by 
taking the nets out of the water for, say, the month of November. 

I know that Mr. Clark and others will claim that hatcheries will make up for every- 
thing in the way of destruction of fish by nets if you also preser\re the immature fish; 
and one of the strong points in favor of artificial hatching of fish (instead of allowing 
parent fish during a closed season to spawn) is that great loss arises from nonfertilization 
of eggs. I think that is a point which is open to discussion, and I will give you an 
illustration, and then I shall sit down. Sometime ago I was engaged in hatching sea 
fish, and I hatched about 70 different species; and I tried on more than one occasion 
to keep some eggs in the laboratory tanks free from fertilization. The sperms which 
the male shed in the open sea would reach those eggs through the supply pipes 
wherever they were placed. In other words, it was almost impossible to keep them 
unfertilized after they were taken from the ripe female. I investigated the same thing 
in sockeye salmon in British Columbia. I tried on the spawning beds to get eggs which 
were not fertilized. I went into the water knee-deep to get them and groped about on 
the spawning beds there, where the fish were engaged in spawning; and I tell you, 
gentlemen, I have gathered quantities of natural fish spawn on the beds, and I failed, in 
some thousands of eggs, to get one single egg that was not fertilized, which showed how 
scrupulously nature accomphshes the fertiUzation of eggs under natural conditions. 
At the same time, I do not deny that eggs may escape impregnation, yet, so far as mv 
obser\-ations go, the eggs which were deposited by the parent fish are almost to an egg 
fertilized. 

I do not wish to say more, Mr. President, but merely these few words. 

The President. The next gentleman. 

685 



686 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Mr. C. H. Wilson. I desire, as the representative of the State of New York, to 
congratulate the gentlemen who have furnished these most interesting papers upon 
this question. I wish to back it up by the protective element and the department of 
fisheries of the State of New York. While we give you great credit for what you have 
done, for what you, in your enthusiasm, hope to do, yet we do not believe the time is 
ripe when we should sever a partnership with nature and the Almighty. [Laughter.] 

The first paper speaks of the effect of pollution of the waters of the Great Lakes 
upon the spawning beds of the whitefish. If the beds of the whitefish are destroyed 
by the thousands of acres, as stated in this paper, I submit to you, Mr. President and 
gentlemen of this congress, that the time has not arrived when we shall fail to take 
advantage of everything to conser\'e the food fishes of North America. 

An argument is made in this paper regarding the closed season. The writer 
wishes to close the season for two months, that the commercial fishermen under the 
guise of gathering spawn for the hatcheries may rush in and slaughter by the thou- 
sands the whitefish of the Great Lakes. May I ask you, gentlemen, what risk do you 
run in having a closed season during the spawning period of the whitefish? By an 
open season you do invite the continuance of an illicit business already begun in the 
taking of whitefish eggs for caviare, one seizure of one and one-half barrels of eggs in 
transit having been made last year. You establish a precedent that will later plague 
you regarding other varieties of fish. 

The enthusiasm of the writer of one of these papers sees the Great Lakes over- 
crowded with fish; the sober judgment of another says, "We may never expect to 
return to former conditions;" while the third, uncertain of his position, says, "A closed 
season may be advantageous." The showing of the enthusiastic and faithful operators 
of hatcheries is fine and gratifying to all; but the catch, after all, determines the real 
pounds pressure of their enthusiasm. Successful planting must follow successful 
hatching, and protection wait upon both; and the argument of all arguments in these 
papers is the statement that the propagation and protection show increase in the last 
few years. What protection? Practically all states and provinces bordering on the 
Great Lakes, save the state of Pennsylvania, with its 45 miles of shore fine, have in 
recent years given protection by a closed season during the spawning time of this valu- 
able fish. 

The statement is made that a closed season will interfere with the taking of spawn. 
Mr. Chester K. Green, who operates a hatchery at Cape Vincent, N. Y., will tell you 
that the state of New York, which I represent on this floor, has given to the United 
States Government permission to take all the spawn it wishes for hatchery purposes. 

Hon. P,\UL North. Representing the state fish and game commission of Ohio, I 
would state that the question of preserving the whitefish on Lake Erie is a very difficult 
one, owing to the fact that Lake Erie has four states and the Dominion of Canada 
bordering, and each and every state has a different law, to a great extent, governing 
the taking and catching of these fish. It is a notorious fact that up until the last year 
New York State permitted the fishing with gill nets of 2 '^-inch mesh, and tons of imma- 
ture fish were caught at Dunkirk and those points — immature whitefish that were of 
absolutely no use whatever — in the summer when they are soft and no good. Of course 
there comes the question that if you stop the catching of fish there you will stop the 
commercial fishermen of New York from making a certain living. And if we, as a gen- 
eral government of Canada and the United States, regulate this and have a closed 
season until such a time as the fish come up the lake, why, then, the Ohio fishermen 
get all the benefit; and you can see where the trouble is going to come in and what a 
difficult matter it is to handle. But the main thing, in my mind, is that Mr. Clark 
and Mr. Downing are both absolutely right in their premises that one hatchery will 
produce more whitefish than all the whitefish in a natural state produce. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 687 

You must remember that as the whitefish have decreased the means of taking 
them have increased. The mileage of the gill nets has increased, and the pound nets 
have increased, until now in places you will see 30 in one string reaching out into the 
lake, and it is a wonder that any fish have been left. We should have regulation all 
along the line — the size, number of pounds they can have in one string of nets; and 
there must be a regulation, gentlemen, that every whitefish that is taken with spawn 
must, as far as possible, be put in the hatchery; and if we can have 50 hatcheries on 
Lake Erie there is no question but what we can have a very large increase in the quan- 
tity of that fish, as shown by the effect of the 2 hatcheries on the lakes, which have 
in the last five or six years increased the catch until last year we had the biggest catch 
on Lake Erie we have had in the last fifteen years; all due to those 2 hatcheries. 
Nature has been doing as much as she could; but those 2 hatcheries have done the 
work. Mr. Downing and Mr. Clark know what they are talking about; thev know 
what the conditions are; they know that the hatcheries will do the work; and that if vou 
can by this means conserve every whitefish until you get its spawn and then run that 
spawn through a hatchery you will have all the whitefish in Lake Erie and more than 
it ever had before. [Applause.] 

Mr. Kelly Ev..\ns. I should just like to take up my three minutes by calling 
attention to a point in one of the papers that was read this morning, in which the state- 
ment was made that while we had a closed season on the Canadian side of the Great 
Lakes the fish in our waters were not as plentiful as they were in the waters on your 
side of the lakes, at several points. I would remind one or two of the fishery commis- 
sioners present that they have already spoken to me at different periods of time in 
reference to using nets by arranging with the Canadian authorities to allow them to 
gather eggs on the Canadian side of the lakes. Does it not seem curious to you that 
if the fish are to be found in very much larger quantities on their side they should wish 
to come to our side for eggs? That is one point I wish to make. 

The second point I wish to make is this, that if the condition outlined in the 
splendid papers read this morning is practically possible to bring about, vou will have 
reached undoubtedly a Utopian condition; but on our side of the water, at any 
rate, I feel convinced that that Utopian condition of things will require a great many 
years to reach. In consequence, if this congress came out very strongly as supporting 
the general proposition that hatcheries could be depended upon entirely, and that 
nature might be ignored, it might result disastrously on our side of the water. If at any 
point in our international waters all the spawn-bearing fish can be so taken care of 
that their spawn is in no way lost, possibly the proposition of depending upon the 
hatcheries alone is the best one; but until that condition of things has been brought 
about it is a very dangerous thing to say to great nature, "We need your assistance 
no longer." I therefore, from these points of view, urge the congress to go very slowly 
on this question of abandoning great Dame Nature. [Applause.] 

Dr. Barton W. Evermann. Mr. President, I would like to discuss this question, 
but I think I shall refrain. I would like to ask one question, however, which I think 
can be answered by Superintendent Lambson, of the California station. If I have 
been correctly informed, the natural spawning beds of the Sacramento salmon in the 
Sacramento River basin have been practically wiped out of existence through mining 
and other operations of that kind, so that even if no salmon were caught in the Sacra- 
mento River either for commercial or for hatchery purposes and all salmon in that stream 
were allowed to ascend to such spawning beds as they might find they would probably 
amount to nothing; they would be unable to find any suitable spawning beds, because 
those beds have been destroyed. But through artificial propagation in the Sacramento 
basin I understand that the catch of salmon in that river now is verv large. Some years 
it is larger than it was ever known to be before artificial propagation began and before 



688 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

that river was so much changed physically because of the results of mining and agri- 
cultural operations. If those are the facts, it seems to me that they point a very impor- 
tant question and suggest very strongly the wisdom of the course which has been 
recommended by two or three gentlemen in the papers they have presented. It 
appears to me that we should no more depend upon natural reproduction in any of 
the species of fish that we can handle than we should depend upon natural reproduction 
of corn or potatoes or any other thing that may be left to the wild. [Applause.] 

Dr. Tarleton H. Bean (New York). Just a word, Mr. President and gentlemen 
of the congress, merely to remind you of the present condition of the shad fisheries of 
the United States, which, it appears to me, is one of the very best illustrations of what 
can be done by artificial culture as against natural reproduction in streams that have 
been more or less polluted. I shall go not very far south of the Hudson River and the 
Delaware for my illustration, and say the Potomac. You gentlemen know as well as I 
that to-day the fisheries — the commercial fisheries of those rivers, especially the shad 
fisheries — rest absolutely on an artificial basis; and they have so rested for the past 
quarter of a century. It is within my knowledge and within your knowledge that in 
1874 shad were selling in the Washington markets at 75 cents apiece on the average. 
You know what they are worth to-day, and you know why it is that you can buy them 
to-day for one-third the price that you paid in 1874. I will not enlarge upon this topic, 
but merely remind you that the Hudson, the Delaware, and the Potomac for the past 
quarter of a century have been increasingly polluted. The natural spawning beds or 
grounds have been covered with cinders and other waste products of industries; and 
without artificial propagation there would be no such thing as a run of shad in the 
North River or the Hudson River to-day, as there has been in 1907 and 1908, equaling 
the catch of more than twenty years ago. 

Mr. Fryer. I do not gather that all the spawning grounds of all the whitefish in 
the Great Lakes are polluted; neither do I gather that they are spoiled by refuse from 
timber works, sawmills, or from any other such cause. 

Mr. Frank N. Clark. If I understand you correctly, you do not understand that 
the spawning grounds of the whitefish are polluted. They most certainly are. In my 
paper I speak of the Thunder Bay River region, where the beds are polluted out 9 miles 
in a bay that is 30 miles across, and there are no whitefish in that territory where they 
used to spawn in great numbers. 

Mr. Fryer. If that applies equally to all the spawning grounds of the whitefish in 
the Great Takes, then, of course, my point falls. 

Mr. Clark. It does not apply to all. 

Mr. Fryer. Then the point I wished to make is that, assuming there are natural 
spawning beds still left in the Great Lakes 

Mr. Clark [interrupting]. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Fryer [continuing]. I am glad the assumption is correct for the sake of the 
fisheries themselves. My argument is this: There is a great distinction to be drawn 
between the case of the Great Lake fisheries and the cases that have been referred to, 
such as the shad fisheries of the Hudson and elsewhere, where it is found that all the 
spawning beds are either polluted or are so cut off from the fish as to be practically 
unavailable, and I expect that in the paper that is about to follow, on the fisheries of 
the Rhine, you will find information given which will enforce the point that there is a 
great distinction to be drawn between those cases where nature still has a little room 
left to perform its own functions and the cases where the natural conditions have been 
practically destroyed; and, on the premise that there are still natural spawning beds 
available for the whitefish, I would venture to support the view put forward by Professor 
Prince, that you have great cause for hesitation before you put aside the question of 
improving or endeavoring to improve these fisheries by restrictive measures and rely 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 689 

solely upon the measures proposed in those three very excellent and admirable papers 
which were read this morning, the sincerity of whose authors one can not fail to appre- 
ciate and admire, however one may differ from their conclusions. 

Professor Prince referred to the difficulty of regulating the sale of undersized fish. 
In England it has been found — as has been recorded in very quaint language in some 
old statutes — that although the law prohibited the sale of small fish their capture was 
inevitable; and when such methods of capture as hooks and lines were employed, and 
the small fish had to be thrown back into the sea, they were destroyed, and the public 
were thus deprived of a certain supply of fish. This is another illustration of the diffi- 
culty referred to by Professor Prince. 

At the present moment we have in Europe a difficulty in connection with certain 
grounds on the southeastern part of the North Sea, where very large quantities of what 
are known as immature or undersized plaice are caught, with very few adults. The 
suggestion was therefore made in that case that an international regulation might be 
passed which would prevent the sale of fish under a certain size, the idea being that 
although the prevention of sale would not in itself prevent the capture, yet the pro- 
portion of small fish taken on those grounds is so large that if the sale were prohibited 
it would not be worth the while of the fishermen to fish there any longer, and so, indi- 
rectly, under those circumstances, the prohibition of sale would have the same effect 
as the prohibition of capture. A period of one hundred and eighty seconds is not very 
long to deal with such an important question as this, but I would like to enforce one 
point made in the last paper, namely, that our knowledge with regard to the spawning 
of fish is not as perfect as it ought to be. On the mere point of fertilization of the ova, 
a very simple test would settle the question as to the proportion of the ova fertilized 
naturally. I may, incidentally, indorse Professor Prince's experience in the matter 
of salmon eggs. I have myself collected salmon and trout ova fertilized naturally, 
under normal conditions, and I have not found 5 per cent of the eggs unfertilized, 
so that, prima facie, there seems very great reason to doubt that the proportion of 
unfertilized eggs in the case of the whiteiish can possibly be 99 per cent, as suggested. 

If I might intrude one minute longer, I would throw out the suggestion — I do it 
with great diffidence, because I do not know all the local details, but as a very broad 
proposition for consideration — that it might be possible to arrange between the United 
States of America and the Dominion of Canada for the waters of the Great Lakes to be 
treated as a common fishery, common to the two countries, subject to common laws, 
equally enforced on both sides, and based on the most perfect knowledge that it is 
possible to obtain with regard to the habits of fish, and of course with regard to the 
habits of man, as to which I personally, as I said before, have insufficient knowledge. 
I just make the suggestion for consideration, with the addendum that if such an idea 
were accepted it might be possible to arrange that the fishermen who are interested in 
conducting these fisheries should themselves contribute to the expense of the adminis- 
tration and regulation of the fisheries in these waters. Whether that administration 
were limited to regulations only or whether it included artificial culture does not matter. 
This might be done by means of a system of tolls leviable not merely by licenses to the 
fishermen, giving them the right to fish, but on the quantity of fish which they brought 
ashore, no matter where they landed it, so long as it was taken in the Great Lakes. 

I make the suggestion with very great diffidence, but if it were possible to elaborate 
it I could give you several reasons in support of it. 

Mr. J. W. TiTCOMB. I will answer the question raised by Professor Evermann 
about the run of salmon in the Sacramento River. Practically all of the salmon 
which ascend the river by the canneries are caught at the Bureau's hatchery and stripped 
of their eggs. Occasionally, say once in three or four years, with a very high freshet, 
the fish get by, or a part of them get by. The fish in the Sacramento River have 

B. B. F. 1908 — 44 



690 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

increased sfeeadily for the past ten or fifteen years. The proportion of eggs which the 
Bureau is able to collect to-day, as compared with that of ten or fifteen years ago, is 
several hundred per cent greater. The observations of Captain Lambson as to the 
natural fertilization of the salmon show that about 75 per cent are fertilized under 
natural conditions; but further obserA-ations show that of the 75 per cent which are 
naturally fertilized fully 95 per cent are smothered in the sand, so that eventually only 
a few hatch. Under artificial conditions we fertilize from 90 to 95 per cent; we hatch 
and develop as fry from 90 to 95 per cent of eggs fertilized. The fishery there is 
dependent entirely on artificial propagation, and during the last ten or fifteen years has 
steadily increased. 

In the shad fishery, which Doctor Bean has alluded to, take, for instance, the Poto- 
mac River: After the Fish Commission began its work of artificial propagation the 
commercial fishery came up steadily until the figures for a great many years were per- 
fectly wonderful. We can not show that tremendous fishery to-dav, for the reason that 
the fish are not allowed to ascend the river where we can get their eggs. All our 
work in the propagation of shad must be done during the spawning season, and the col- 
lection of eggs is dependent on the run of shad during that season. They can not be 
caught at other seasons of the year because they are not there. 

I think that both the salmon and shad are an illustration of the whitefish question, 
to show that the open season is desirable, if we can have along with it all the necessary 
hatcheries and spawntakers to conser^'e the eggs which would otherwise go to waste. 
[Applause.] 

Mr. W. E. Meehan. Mr. President and gentlemen, I did not intend to take part 
in this discussion, for the reason that it occurred to me that the papers read this morn- 
ing cover the question so completely and are so fully in accord with the experiences 
I have had in the fisheries of Lake Erie and the Delaware River in the case of shad, 
whitefish, herring, and other fishes that are caught in the commercial nets for mar- 
ket purposes. It seems to me that the maintenance of fish by artificial propagation 
is necessarv — that the latter is necessary to maintain fisheries. The plea that, although 
we may believe a closed season for non- nest -building fishes is not needed because fish 
hatcheries can better keep up the supply of fish than natural propagation, we ought 
not publicly to say so for fear some harm will be done to some other country which 
does not propagate is, to my mind, much like the warning which the man gave another 
not to teach his children to read for fear they would later on come to read pernicious 
literature. 

All experiments made have shown that artificial propagation is necessary for the 
maintenance of fish in the water; that with increased population and increased demand 
it is impossible to maintain a supply by natural propagation. Artificial propagation 
has increased the supply of whitefish in Lake Erie and probably in the other lakes; 
it has increased the herring; it has increased the shad in the rivers. Without artificial 
means we would have no shad to-day. Artificial propagation has made the whitefish 
industrv once more profitable. The JDest policy, in my estimation, is that which is out- 
lined bv Messrs. Downing, Clark, and Reighard, to give the freest possible fishing for 
whitefish, herring, and the like during the summer months when the water is warm, 
when the fish are soft, and when the runs of fish are apt to be small and immature as 
to size. Catch the large fish and give the small fish a chance to grow. If closed seasons 
were made during the spawning period, there is scarcely a fish-cultural station on the 
Great Lakes that would be filled, unless the government and the states had about 
every boat employed in fishing. In the state of Pennsylvania, for the hatcheries set 
apart particularly for the propagation of the lake fishes, it will require every boat going 
out of the port of Erie to fill those hatcheries, and it is doubtful even then if the houses 
would be full. The more fish that are hatched, the greater must be the percentage of 
increase in suitable waters. 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 69 1 

These are my reasons for supporting and believing the papers of this morning as 
enunciating the true doctrine of increasing the food-fish supply. [Applause.] 

Mr. Seymour Bower (Michigan). Mr. President and gentlemen, I had not intended 
to take any part in this discussion. I will say, however, that for many years I have 
been in hearty accord with the views regarding whitefish propagation as expressed in 
the papers just read. In fact, I think Mr. Clark, Mr. Stranahan, and others here will 
bear me out in saying that I was one of the pioneers in advancing those views. To me 
this proposition seems so simple as to be hardly worth a moment's consideration if we 
are right as to the value of what is known as artificial propagation. As evidence of its 
value I can state that the catch of whitefish in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes is 
steadily increasing, has been for a number of years, and is now very nearly double what 
it was ten years ago. To be more exact, in the latter part of the nineties the annual 
catch was a little over 3,000,000 pounds on an average, while in 1906, the last year for 
which we have complete statistics, the catch was over 5,000,000 pounds. The figures 
for 1907 and 1908 are not compiled, but our agent who is now in the field is of the opinion 
that both years will show a still further increase. 

There is just one thought in connection with this matter which I desire to present. 
There are two great divisions in the forces of nature, which we might term destructive and 
constructive. The existence and development of all forms of life are possible only 
through the destruction of some other form, either animal or vegetable Now, as fish 
spawn in nature, the ova are subject not only to the constructive forces of their environ- 
ment, but also to many destructive ones; but when transferred from that environment 
to an artificial or protected one, they are separated from these destructive forces and 
are then subject only to those that are constructive, with the result that production is 
increased many fold. If that proposition is true, and we have most convincing evi- 
dence that it is, the situation is greatly simplified. We should ajjply this principle 
wherever practicable; should take advantage of every opportunity to prevent the ova 
of the better class of food fishes from being thrown into contact with the destructive 
forces of nature. This is the vital point or principle in fish culture. 

The President. Professor Birge, have you .something to say in this matter? We 
would like to know your views. 

Prof. E. A. Birge. I have no right to speak with any authority on this subject. I 
have been in agreement with the views expressed in the papers which were read this 
morning, but I have no such personal knowledge of whitefish culture or the whitefish 
industry as those gentlemen who have spoken on the subject. 

Mr. W. T. Thompson (Colorado). I would like to say a few words along the line 
of thought advanced by Professor Evermann. I believe I can bring evidence from 
Colorado which will place the result attained by hatchery methods beyond question. 
Mr. Titcomb stated in his lecture this morning that larger collections of eggs from wild 
brook trout could be made in Colorado than in any other section. I wish to call your 
attention to the fact that this species is not indigenous to our state, but was first intro- 
duced about twenty-five years ago. No trout were found in the state at that time 
except the native species, chief among which was the blackspotted trout (Salmo 
clarkii). 

The brook trout was first introduced, in small numbers, about 1882 or 1883. Some 
two years later the introduction of the rainbow trout was commenced in a very limited 
way. Coloradoans had been accustomed to the native trout for vears; the waters 
were thickly populated with them when the white man first arrived. Naturally, they 
thought they would always have them without eft'ort on their part, consequently there 
was no demand on the hatcheries for them; hence, we produced none. The adult fish 
were allowed to deposit their spawn naturally, "according to the dictates of their con- 
science," as we might say. I might add that the spawning beds were not polluted to 
any extent and were and are still accessible. 



692 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Now, let us see what has been the result in Colorado after a period of twenty-five 
years: Our hatcheries, beginning with these first small plants made from eggs secured 
from other points, gradually began to secure both brook and rainbow spawn in increas- 
ing numbers from our own waters. The Gunnison River is one of our typical trout 
streams. Twenty-five years ago it was full of the native trout. None were taken 
from it for spawning purposes, consequently it can not be claimed that the hatcheries 
interfered in any way with their natural reproduction. The hatcheries, meanwhile, 
have been industriously collecting both brook and rainbow eggs, planting the resulting 
fry in public waters in increasing numbers, year by year. To-day, after twenty-five 
years of this policy of noninterference with the natives, this species has become prac- 
tically extinct in the Gunnison River, and the condition in this river is typical of what 
has transpired in our other streaitis. This same Gunnison River is still celebrated for 
its trout, but the reputation rests entirely on the introduced species, the hatchery 
products, the rainbow of the Pacific slope and the brook trout of the east, which in our 
Colorado waters found a congenial home and attained a higher degree of excellence 
than in their native habitat. Sixty-five per cent, possibly more, of the trout in the 
Gunnison to-day are rainbows, the balance are brooks, with an occasional native, but 
the latter are very rare. 

So far as Colorado is concerned, both of these varieties are entirely the product of 
the hatcheries. Nature, or, more properly speaking, the natural method of spawning, 
had practically nothing to do with this remarkable increase. That this is a fact is 
amply attested by the rapid decrease among the natives when left to propagate nat- 
urally. Through the work of the hatcheries, our streams are still well stocked, but 
with the brook and rainbow trout. 

Mr. Titcomb spoke of a lake containing an island, around which the fish circulated 
in great numbers during the spawning period. If we allowed these fish to spawn according 
to nature, there is no doubt but that lake would continue to be thickly populated, but 
it would not benefit other waters. Operated under fish-cultural methods, assisting 
nature in her efforts, we have taken over 6,000,000 eggs from this island lake. We 
could have taken more had we proper facilities at the time. With the fry from these 
eggs, we were enabled to stock many of the lakes and streams of the state. I beHeve 
no better illustrations can be given of the value of fish-cultural methods than we can 
bring you from Colorado. 

Mr. Fr.\.\k N. Clark. Mr. President and gentlemen, I have very little information 
to add in the short time allotted to me in this discussion, but I shall try to answer the 
two or three points which are all I am willing to concede have been made on the other 
side of this question. 

One question, I think possibly from Mr. Fryer, or some other member, in reference 
to the small fish — speaking of certain nets or grounds where it was almost impossible 
to get along without catching small fish. Remember what I said: "Prevent any sort 
of fishing in certain localities where large numbers of immature fish congregate upon the 
feeding grounds, this legislation to pertain to all portions of the Great Lakes system 
where the presence of such fish has been established and to be enforced during such 
month or months as they make their appearance in large numbers for feeding purposes." 
We do not propose to permit any fishing there at all; wherever the small fish are caught 
in large numbers should be a government reservation — that is my idea. That is all I 
have to say about the small fish. 

Another gentleman, I think Professor Prince, spoke of the high percentage of 
impregnation of the fish eggs in a natural way. With the salmon there is no doubt of it; 
but with trout, i. e., lake trout, not the stream trout, and with the whitefish, I thought 
it was conceded by all who are interested in fish culture that the percentage of impreg- 
nation of the naturally spawned fish was very low. I have always sujjposed it was 
conceded. If I might be permitted to state, Mr. President, I think it is of record in some 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 693 

of our early United States Fish Commission reports, where I personal!}' made certain 
observations upon this phase of our subject, and I have always supposed that this was 
why we approved the dry method of impregnation instead of the wet method. Experi- 
ments made by me many years ago in taking eggs of the whitefish brought me to these 
conclusions: You take your eggs in a pan of water with the milt, and you get a fair 
impregnation; you take your eggs in a pail of water, say 10 gallons, and you get a 
medium impregnation — perhaps 20, 30, or possibly 40 per cent. If you take your eggs 
in a barrel of water you may get 1 5 or 20 per cent. Therefore I have always concluded 
that where the female whitefish spawned indiscriminately in the water, with the milt no 
doubt added in the same way, only partial fertilization would result. In fact I believe, 
Mr. President, that many female whitefish spawn when there is not a male fish anywhere 
in the vicinity. From that we must, it seems to me, draw the conclusion that where 
the whitefish spawn naturally it is not possible to have any high percentage of impreg- 
nation. Personally, I do not like the word "artificial." There is nothing under the sun 
artificial about the care or hatching of fish eggs, excepting that you give them care. 
It is "protected propagation," Mr. President, and I like to use that term. There is 
nothing artificial in taking the eggs. You merely bring the eggs and the milt together. 
That is all there is of it; and then you care for them, and the care and attention which is 
given them in our hatcheries is what I prefer to call protected propagation. 

Some speaker mentioned pound nets. Here is the ground that I take. As you will 
see, I make the penalty very severe to the fishermen; it is the most severe punishment 
that was ever thought of, in my judgment. Think of it! The third violation stops 
his fishing. I do not care if he is but 20 years old, he stops fishing the balance of his 
life. Suppose some of our immensely wealthy fishermen on the Great Lakes — take 
the A. Booth Packing Company — violate this law the third time, what happens? They 
must stop fishing or the revenue boat will attend to them. 

All this is contained in this paper, and my idea is based on the idea of federal control, 
not state regulation. I mean federal control by the Dominion of Canada and the United 
States; not state control or provincial control. Our warden boats go there, and they 
may find a man violating the law. He is arrested; his license is taken away from him 
for six months; for the second offense for a longer period. 

Might I be permitted to state what I said to a fisherman on the lake? I gave him 
my idea of this federal control, and what I proposed. I said: "You do not obey these 
state laws very well?" "Oh, no;" he replied, "we take our chances on getting caught." 
"You caught a considerable number of fish here one fall out of season?" He replied: 
"YeSj oh, yes." "Well," I said, "John, I know how many you caught — about $10,000 
worth." He answered: "Yes; and I was taken over here and fined $500, but I had 
$9,500 left." I said to him: "John, what will you do if you are licensed and you violate 
that law, and have to stop fishing six months?" "Why," he said, "it would almost 
ruin me for six months." I said: "What will you do if you have to stop for a year?" 
He replied: "I could not stand it." That is my idea. I do not know whether I have 
answered all questions or not. 

Mr. J. J. Str.w.ah.w (Georgia). Mr. Clark, you have a better memory than mine, I 
know. You remember what we published with reference to the fertilization of white- 
fish eggs on the Detroit River? 

Mr. Clark. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Strax.\h.\\. What was the percentage? 

Mr. Clark. It was very low. I do not know that I can give the exact figures. It 
might have been one-half of i per cent. 

Mr. Straxahan. Less than i in i ,000. 

Mr. Clark. Very low, indeed. 

Mr. Stran.\h.\x. I want to speak only a word. Under the direction of the United 
States Commissioner of Fisheries, I was instructed to make dredgings on the reefs with 



694 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

our steamer, using the hose. We did so for several days the latter part of November 
and the early part of December. We had an inch hose and a rotary pump; and we took 
up only a few thousand eggs. I can not give you the percentage, but it was somewhere 
in the vicinity of one egg out of three or four hundred, and, as I remember it now, we got 
only eleven or twelve impregnated eggs during our two or three days' work. Our work 
was off North Bass Island, and around the island near the hatchery where I was then 
superintendent. 

Professor Prince. There is just one error that I think Mr. Clark would willingly con- 
sent to having removed, and that is that spawning grounds in the Great Lakes are all 
polluted. On the Canadian side there are splendid spawning beds which are unpolluted. 
There are great spawning grounds in Lake Erie and Georgian Bay unpolluted, and the 
benefit of these spawning grounds must be felt on the Great Lakes, as the benefit of the 
hatcheries is also felt. I wish to saj' that I am as strong an advocate as anybod}' for 
artificial culture, and have said so in numerous official reports; but I also think that if 
you can combine thatworkwith a closed season, then you have an ideal state of things. 

Mr. Samuel F. FullERTon (Minnesota). Mr. President and gentlemen of the congress, 
have you taken into consideration that men whom I claim to be the foremost in the United 
States to day in their profession have written papers, all in different directions and 
all coming to the same conclusion? If any of your family were sick and there were a 
horse doctor and a physician of high standing in the same community, which would 
you employ — the horse doctor? No, you would take the physician of high standing. 
Here is Mr. Clark, who has been in the business for forty years, and j\lr. Downing has 
perhaps been in it as long — men whose word is law in regard to fish culture ; and we should 
take their word, not that of the horse doctor. Now, in our state last year we had a law 
suit; and I think this will illustrate the point I want to make as well as anything else. 
At that law suit we had the evidence of eleven fish culturists — the foremost men we 
could get. We went all over the United States for them; and the conclusion they all 
reached was the same : That not one whitefish or pike perch egg in 500 ever came to 
maturity. They were sworn men; they had made tests. I have been at it eighteen 
years, and I have taken eggs off the bottom rocks and off the sand and brought them 
to our hatchery and hatched them; but I never got i per cent of fry. [Applause]. 

Mr. DwiGHT Lydell (Michigan). I have been listening very attentively to the 
speakers, and did not intend to say anything; but when some of them stated that we 
could get along without Dame Nature, I desire to say that I think we can not. I think 
all fish culturists are willing to admit that Dame Nature is what we need up to a certain 
point, when they step in and beat Dame Nature where the whitefish are concerned for 
the next five months. 

I took some dredgings on the Detroit River, under the instructions of the Michi- 
gan Fish Commission, several years ago, when they were engaged in the propagation of 
the whitefish ; and out of two quarts that I gathered nearly every day with a dredge, 
I failed to find any impregnated whitefish eggs. This work was carried on during the 
months of March and April. No whitefish eggs were collected whatever that were 
good, although we got quarts and pails of poor ones. That was on the natural spawn- 
ing grounds. 

I do not think that we ought to compare our brook trout or any of our other spe- 
cies of fish, except the lake herring and wall-eyed pike, with our whitefish. The white- 
fish spawns promiscuously in the water wherever it happens to be. The brook trout 
clean off their beds in the streams and spawn on them; both the male and the female 
are there. Take the whitefish run on the Detroit River. The female whitefish come 
up there in great numbers after the male run has nearly passed by. The first run com- 
prises nearly all males; in the second run you will get ten females where you will get 
one male. As they are all ready to spawn, I think it would be impossible for one male 
to attend to so many females; but if the males that are caught from the first run are 



THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 695 

held in crates by the fish culturist, and used when the females come on, nearly every 
egg is saved to be turned loose later as a lively young fish. Our tally sheets which are 
on file in the Fish Commissioner's office show these statements to be true. So I do 
not think we ought to compare the brook trout with the whitefish in this discussion 
at all. 

Mr. Fryer. I would like to ask one question, which is, What was the condition of 
the whitefish fisheries of the Great Lakes say sixty years ago, before there were many of 
the mischiefs that exist now, such as pollutions and pound nets and other wickednesses 
on the part of man, and when also there was no such thing as protected reproduction? 

One other question on the point of the illustration given us from Colorado. I am 
in doubt whether the speaker from that State wishes us to infer that the native trout 
had died out because there was no protected reproduction in its case, or whether we 
are to assume that it had succumbed to the superior numbers and greater voracity of 
the ahen fish imported into its water. 

Mr. Paul North (Ohio). I do not go back sixty years, but Mr. Fryer would know 
the difference in conditions on Lake Erie now as compared with sixty years ago if he 
could realize that we have in Lake Erie on the American side a fleet of nearly 300 tugs 
with 6 to 8 miles of gill nets to the tug. He could appreciate that, if the same conditions 
which existed sixty years ago with regard to replenishing the lake were present to-day, 
we would not have a fish of that kind in Lake Erie. 

The President. Now, in regard to the question about the native trout. Mr. 
Thompson will reply to that question. 

Mr. Thompson. I intended my hearers to infer that it was owing to lack of artificial 
propagation that the native trout had died out to so great an extent. I will state that 
we have in recent years commenced an extensive work with the natives, with the inten- 
tion of again making them a factor in our streams. The lake Mr. Titcomb mentioned 
this morning, where the fish circulate around the island in countless thousands, is one 
of our native trout-spawning fields. It is about 200 acres in extent and has yielded 
over 6,000,000 eggs in a single season, this quantity being limited merely by our exist- 
ing facilities. 

[The discussion of the whitefish question terminated at this point but was briefly 
taken up again on the following day.] 

The President. Mr. FuUerton has just spoken to me about a matter of general 
misunderstanding in regard to the whitefish question, and it seems to me to be of suffi- 
cient importance to be brought again before the attention of the congress. I will ask 
him kindly to make that statement made to me a moment ago. 

Mr. FuLLERTON (Minnesota). A misunderstanding has arisen in regard to the open 
season of whitefish, that we had the discussion on yesterday. I have talked with several 
gentlemen who did not understand the position that we took in regard to letting the 
fishermen fish in the closed season. 

We did not for a moment contemplate letting any fishermen fish in the open season, 
except it be under the jurisdiction and under the control of the state or federal authori- 
ties, both of Canada and of the United States. I hope this explanation will clear away 
a misunderstanding that existed, that the fishermen are allowed to go to the spawning 
beds and fish at will. That is not at all intended; that would not be tolerated for a 
moment. They must do their fishing and taking of the eggs only under the control of 
the authorities. 

The President. The chair requests, then, that those who are here will explain to 
any members who are interested in this problem that this explanation has been made, 
because I can see how it is perfectly clear to those who are connected with our national 
hatcheries in the United States. It is so clear, indeed, that they did not emphasize it in 
the discussion yesterday afternoon. 



/# 



^ .V 



,,BRARV OF CONGRESS 



5)52 866 187 3 




